The Oxford English Dictionary has announced that their Word Of The Year for this year was "brain rot." Their definition: "Supposed deterioration of a person's mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as a result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging. (Also: Something characterized as likely to lead to such deterioration)." Hey, we can relate to that concept....

Speaking of rotting brains (a wonderful segue if there ever was one), Donald Trump continues to fill out his administration, nominating more and more sexual predators, total incompetents, billionaires, and complete clowns (those categories are not mutually exclusive, we should point out). A "team of ribalds" for the ages, it seems.

The media spotlight this week fell in a big way on Pete Hegseth, Trump's designated pick to lead the Pentagon as secretary of Defense. Bombshell reports on Hegseth's past seemed to drop like falling leaves, with many accusations of out-of-control drinking, womanizing, and general boorish behavior. The New Yorker dug into his past with two non-profit veterans groups. Hegseth was eventually "forced to step down by both" of them. Here's just one example of their reporting:

[A]t one point, Hegseth had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club, where he had brought his team. The report also says that Hegseth, who was married at the time, and other members of his management team sexually pursued the organization's female staffers, whom they divided into two groups -- the "party girls" and the "not party girls."

A whistleblower in one of these groups said that Hegseth "treated the organization funds like they were a personal expense account -- for partying, drinking, and using [the organization's] events as little more than opportunities to 'hook up' with women on the road." Their reaction to imagining Hegseth running the Department of Defense? "I've seen him drunk so many times. I've seen him dragged away not a few times but multiple times. To have him at the Pentagon would be scary."

Charming guy to run the nation's military, eh?

Then the New York Times ran a report with some scathing quotations from an email Hegseth's own mother sent him, in 2018:

On behalf of all the women (and I know it's many) you have abused in some way, I say... get some help and take an honest look at yourself.... I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.

Once again, this is from his own mother.

These weren't the only stories of Hegseth getting blind drunk, and the drip-drip-drip of new revelations continued all week long. Even Republicans began to get nervous about his chances for confirmation. So Team Trump leaked that Trump had been considering a "Plan B" -- naming Ron DeSantis to the job instead.

Democratic House member Jim McGovern summed up the opposition view nicely: "I mean, it looks like the requirements to be in the Trump White House that you either abuse women or you're an out-of-touch billionaire." He went on to address Hegseth specifically: "I mean, this guy is probably dropping out momentarily. Apparently, he drinks on the job and paid to cover up his sexual assault allegations. Even his mom doesn't like him."

For those keeping score at home, Trump has already had to yank three of his nominees: Matt Gaetz (for obvious reasons), his pick to head the Drug Enforcement Agency, and his pick for White House Counsel. Hegseth, if he suddenly withdraws his name from consideration, would be the fourth.

Dr. Oz, meanwhile, has now been accused of hawking herbal supplements online without disclosing (as the rules demand) that he was a stakeholder in the companies he was pushing products for. The only good news for Trump's nominees this week was that R.F.K. Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard somehow managed to stay in the background.

And so the clown parade marches on, with a new addition to this parade: Trump named Kash Patel to lead the F.B.I., which would require him to fire the current head of the F.B.I. once he takes office. HuffPost ran some pithy commentary on this choice:

"Kash Patel as F.B.I. director would be like if you crossed Alex Jones with J. Edgar Hoover in terms of just how much he would want to ignore precedent and the constraints that have been put on the F.B.I. over the years," [MSNBC contributor Hayes] Brown said on Saturday. "With all of the conspiracy theorizing, all of the eagerness to fan the flames of the worst instincts of President Trump put into power, those two things should never mix."

Axios reporter Sophia Cai called Patel's nomination a "massive middle finger to the intelligence community."

When Trump proposed making Patel the head of either the F.B.I. or the C.I.A. during his first term in office, William Barr (who was Trump's attorney general at the time) said Patel would only become F.B.I. director "over his dead body." But Barr is no longer in Trump's orbit in any way, of course.

Other Trump administration news: While Trump hasn't yet named any of his children or children's spouses to an administration position (yet), he did put forward Jared Kushner's father Charles for ambassador to France. Charles Kushner previously received a pardon from Trump for the felonies he was convicted of. Pete Navarro, who was very recently in prison himself, will also be part of the Trump administration. Because shame is dead in the Republican Party, ever since Trump rode down that golden escalator (lo these many years ago).

But we find that we only have the stomach for a rather abbreviated rundown of politics this week, as we head into the festive holiday season. Personally, we blame it all on brain rot. Or on Trump's growing collection of rotting brains... take your pick.

It wasn't covered extensively in the media this week (a lot of other things were going on), but there was a protest on Capitol Hill that deserves more attention than it got. We have even kind of been expecting this sort of thing, and we have to say we were glad to see it happen.

House Speaker Mike Johnson headed off an effort by Representative Nancy Mace to introduce a bill that would have banned trans people from using bathrooms of their gender identity. Johnson tried to head this effort off by just changing the Capitol rules to do exactly what Mace was attempting (without having to bother holding a floor vote on it). This covers all House office buildings and the House side of the Capitol, and it was all directed at the first trans member of Congress ever, who will be sworn in to the incoming Congress.

The new rule didn't just apply to the new member, but to all trans people in any of the buildings. A lot of which are spaces open to the public. Which led to a protest by over a dozen transgender rights activists both in and in front of a bathroom "right next to the office" of the Speaker. One of the protesters was Chelsea Manning, who issued a statement saying in part:

I'm not here as a leader or a spokesperson but simply as another member of my community who shows up unconditionally to support my siblings in this fight. I will stand beside them no matter what. We didn't start this fight, but we are together now.

Here's how HuffPost reported on the protest:

Their surprise demonstration was in response to [Speaker Mike] Johnson's new House policy, but also aimed at Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who has introduced at least two bills in recent weeks at pushing transgender people out of public spaces.

Mace admitted the first of her bills, which would bar House lawmakers and employees from using House bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, is "100%" targeted at one person: transgender Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.). Her second bill is aimed at barring bathroom access for transgender people in all federal buildings, including public schools and universities, national parks and even airports, train stations and bus terminals.

For about 20 minutes, Manning and others took over the public bathroom by Johnson's office and led chants while holding up a banner that read, "FLUSH BATHROOM BIGOTRY." Outside in the hall, right in front of Johnson's office door, more activists shouted chants and held a massive sign that read, "CONGRESS STOP PISSING ON OUR RIGHTS."

The protest was organized by the group Gender Liberation Movement, and led to around 15 of them (roughly half of them) being arrested. And while they are not officially affiliated with the Democratic Party (indeed, they had some harsh things to say about Democrats, such as: "Democrats, grow a spine! Trans lives are on the line!"), we have to assume there are probably more Democrats in the group than any other political affiliation, so we decided they were eligible for this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award anyway.

In any civil rights protest movement, there is usually a balance between those who try to calmly and politely persuade others of the righteousness of their cause and those who prefer a more in-your-face method of protest. Because Johnson changed the rules to apply to anyone, and because there are indeed public areas that this new rule covers, it set the stage for protests exactly like the one that happened this week.

It takes a lot of courage to participate in such a protest, knowing you may well be arrested for doing so. Which is why, to us, this was so impressive. We have to admit we had never heard of the Gender Liberation Movement until now, but we will be keeping an eye out for them (and for any future protests launched by them) in the future.

[We could not find a contact form on it, but here is the Gender Liberation Movement's website, if you are interested in supporting them.]

There's really only one choice for this one this week. President Joe Biden announced last weekend that he had issued a sweeping pardon for anything and everything his son Hunter might have done wrong for the past 11 years. This will not only make the two federal cases where Hunter has been found or pled guilty disappear, it will also completely insulate him from any investigations the incoming Trump administration (or Congress, for that matter) might want to launch against him.

While this is completely understandable -- what parent wouldn't give their own child a "get out of jail free" card, after all? -- it led to a lot of disappointment from some Democrats.

There were two main flavors of this disappointment. The first is that President Joe Biden swore up and down, even after the election was over, that he would not be pardoning his son. He was quite adamant on this point, in fact. He was taking the high road, and upholding the principle that "no one is above the law in America." Which leads to the second (and bigger) reason for Democratic disappointment, since Biden's pardon of his son will serve to undercut any high-road Democratic complaints about Trump.

Republicans -- from Trump on down -- have become masters of "whataboutism." And you can bet your bottom dollar that "But what about Biden pardoning his son?" is going to become a favorite answer to any and all complaints about Trump warping the American justice system to achieve his own selfish goals. We expect to hear that refrain ad nauseam for at least the next four years, personally.

President Biden gave them this rhetorical ammo to use by pardoning his son. He's certainly not the first president to pardon a family member (as previously mentioned, Trump pardoned his son-in-law's father), and he did indeed have very valid worries as to how a Trump administration would treat his son in the future. Hunter Biden has been such a bugaboo for Republicans for so long, it's easy to see them going after him all over again next year.

Some are arguing that it's about time Democrats jettisoned the idea of always taking the moral high road, since it just leads to the media and the public holding them to an incredibly different (higher) standard than Republican politicians. This is a valid point as well, since Michelle Obama's: "When they go low, we go high" has not notably led to many Democratic successes, at least politically.

Still, this does indeed undercut any sort of moralizing case about Trump. Now the best Democrats will be able to argue is that "Trump is much worse," which is obviously a weaker argument to make.

What is interesting at this point is the pre-emptive nature of Hunter Biden's pardon. It didn't just pardon him for the crimes he was facing imminent sentencing for, it absolves him for a period stretching back to when Joe Biden was merely vice president. Which has led to calls for Biden to issue a whole raft of pardons, all equally as sweeping, to preclude Donald Trump from launching a revenge tour once he gets in office. Biden is being urged to pre-emptively pardon people like Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Representative Liz Cheney (as well as all the other members of the House January 6th Committee), Special Counsel Jack Smith (as well as anyone else involved with any of the investigations of Trump), and anyone else Biden thinks might become a target of political misuse of the justice system. Kash Patel even publicly put out a rather extensive list of who he'd target a while back, which might be a good place for Biden to start.

It's certainly an interesting idea. It would completely pull the rug out from all of Trump's seething revenge fantasies, that's for sure. If everyone Trump held a major grudge against already had been pardoned for any crime they may have committed, then none of them could even be investigated.

But at the same time, it is a bit odd. As far as most Democrats are concerned -- as well as many of the people on that list -- these people have done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing criminal. So why would they need (or even accept) a pardon? That is a moral question the president is probably grappling with right now.

But whatever happens with the rest of them, President Joe Biden will always have the pardon of his son as part of his presidential legacy. He broke his word to the American people -- and Joe Biden has long prided himself on keeping his word. And by doing so, he has given Donald Trump and all the Republicans an easy knee-jerk answer to any complaints Democrats might have about weaponizing the Justice Department.

For all these reasons, Joe Biden is the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Even though, as we said, what he did should be entirely understandable to anyone who is a parent.

[Contact President Joe Biden via the White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 777 (12/6/24)

We have a few program notes before we get to this week's talking points. This will be the final Friday Talking Points column of this calendar year. For the next two Fridays, we will instead be featuring our year-end awards columns for everyone to enjoy. If you'd like to make nominations for the first round of these awards, we invited everyone to do so yesterday.

Then we'll be taking the Friday between Christmas and New Year's Day off, so our next Friday Talking Points column won't run until January 3rd, just to warn everyone.

Secondly, we promise this is the only time we're going to bring this up on a Friday, but we are in the midst of our annual pledge drive, if you'd like to show your support to the site. And some good news for the new year -- we have now officially contracted with a web developer to update this site (which needs a complete rebuild, as it was originally designed in 2007!), and this upgrade is on schedule for January or perhaps early February (if the Inauguration gets in the way of the rollout).

With that out of the way, let's just get right to this week's talking points, shall we?

   Is there a box to check on the form, or what?

These first two are just pure snark. Hey, 'tis the season and all, right?

"Is it an actual requirement that people have to be accused of sexual misconduct -- or even sexual assault -- in order to be named to the Trump administration? I mean, I'm just curious...."

   Trump criminal organization

This one is payback for all that "Biden crime family" nonsense Republicans have been using for years now.

"...or is a felony conviction for a federal crime good enough to qualify as well? I mean, I'm just asking.... It seems like we shouldn't be talking about the 'incoming Trump administration' so much as the 'incoming Trump criminal organization,' with all the jailbirds that'll surround our new 34-times-a-felon president."

   What about Manafort?

These next four talking points are taken directly from the best article we read this week that shows how Democrats need to brush up their own "whataboutism" skills. Because the mainstream media's obviously not going to do this job for them. Here are four times Trump used the pardon power not to shield a close family member but rather to politically benefit himself, from a Salon article that points out "the political high road is a mirage."

We will start with the odious Paul Manafort. He had all kinds of connections to possible Trump crimes. Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska hired him to run his influence operation in Ukraine, which included lobbying for an accused murderer seeking investment opportunities for his corrupt company, as well as running the political campaign of Viktor Yanukovych, the corrupt Ukrainian politician who would be elected president and then ousted in a peaceful revolution. Manafort met repeatedly with a Russian GRU agent working for Deripaska, Konstantin Kilimnik, while serving as Trump's 2016 campaign manager and even transferred Trump polling information to him. Manafort was convicted on multiple counts of bank fraud and money laundering associated with his corrupt work in Ukraine. He lied to investigators looking into Trump's Russia ties. He had connections to Trump's so-called foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, whom Trump appointed as his first national security adviser, and who was ousted from that position after serving just two weeks for lying to the FBI about his connections to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

   And Flynn?

A footnote to that first paragraph is necessary.

Trump pardoned Flynn, too.

   And Stone?

Trump has long surrounded himself with total sleazebags, which provide the next two examples.

Trump pardoned the execrable Roger Stone, who was Trump's cut-out to the Russian intelligence computer hackers who stole Hillary Clinton's and Democratic Party emails and published them just before the 2016 election to undercut the Clinton campaign. Stone was another Trump crony convicted of lying under oath and obstructing a congressional investigation into Trump's collusion with Russians during his 2016 campaign.

   And Bannon?

Last but not least (in sleazebaggery, at least)...

Trump also pardoned Steve Bannon, who along with Stone, had connections to the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and One Percenters during the run-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection.

   The tightrope Johnson will have to walk

We wrote about this earlier, since it didn't really garner that much media attention.

"Democrats actually got some good news as the final election results were certified -- they actually gained a seat in the House of Representatives. The partisan balance in the new House will officially be 220 to 215, but for the first few months Speaker Johnson will only have 217 Republicans to work with (since one already resigned in disgrace and two others have been nominated by Trump for positions in his administration). This will be the smallest-ever House majority in American history, at least at the start. This will also mean that until perhaps April, Johnson won't be able to lose a single vote from his side of the aisle to pass purely partisan bills. As I said, this is a bit of encouraging news from the final election results that may become important during Trump's first days back in office. Because Republicans actually lost ground in the House."

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground