Saturday, April 27, 2024

Pretty Sure What He’s Describing…

...dates back to the FDR administration.
Posted by at No comments:

I Wonder If The Supremes Are Taking This Scenario Into Consideration 🤔

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 26, 2024

Um 😕

According to information obtained Friday, Johnson said once the troopers began using force on the students around 10 p.m., the state troopers on the roof switched to long-range firearms as part of their protocol. 
“Ohio State Highway Patrol provided overwatch support, which is a standard safety measure when they assist with large gatherings,” Johnson’s statement said. “We don’t discuss specific public safety protocols. In general, overwatch support is armed, and the team carries standard equipment, including firearms, that would only be used reactively to protect the safety of all present, including demonstrators.”
This is where I remind the audience that none of the four dead students at Kent State in 1970 were part of the demonstration.

And the National Guard were completely exonerated, and the students (who were just on campus) were blamed.

😶 
Posted by at No comments:

It’s A Dog’s Life 🐶

Oh, I don’t know, the news today gave a lot of people on the Left some happiness. What’s not to love? Are we sure we know how many kids she’s had? Talk about somebody who shouldn’t even be elected dog catcher.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday Night’s Alright For Fightin’

"Crooked Joe Biden just announced that he’s willing to debate!" Trump posted on Truth Social during a break in the trial. "Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it, but in case he does, I say, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, an old expression used by Fighters." 
I love the idea that an overweight, out of shape old man who snoozes daily in the courtroom, imagines himself a “Fighter.” And if you have to call attention to it, you ain’t one.
"I suggest Monday Evening, Tuesday Evening, or Wednesday Evening at my Rally in Michigan, a State that he is in the process of destroying with his E.V. Mandate," 
"In the alternative, he’s in New York City today, although probably doesn’t know it, and so am I, stuck in one of the many Court cases that he instigated as ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT - A CONTINUING WITCH HUNT!" Trump posted. "It’s the only way he thinks he can win. In fact, let’s do the Debate at the Courthouse tonight - on National Television, I’ll wait around!"
Certainly don’t want to do an organized debate with a moderator and an audience; especially not an audience which could ask questions.

And while Trump, even as POTUS, would have time for such an impromptu event, I think Biden has a bit more of a schedule to keep. One that doesn’t involve being in the courtroom all day, though.

And now we know why Trump wants that debate tonight:
The second witness called in the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump was his longtime Executive Assistant Rhona Graff. She later became "Assistant to the President" after his election, then Senior VP for Trump Org. She worked for Trump for 34 years until 2021. 
Prosecutors began her testimony by pointing out that she was compelled to be there by subpoena and she had a lawyer there hired by Trump but she didn't even know her last name. They showed her a list of contacts that she had previously saved and one of them was Stormy Daniels with her phone number. She was asked if she ever saw Daniels at Trump Tower before 2015 and she said that she had and she was aware that she was a porn actress. 
That concluded her testimony, which was simply to show that Trump's Executive Assistant had Stormy's name and phone number on file and that she had been at Trump Tower despite the fact that Trump has repeatedly claimed he didn't know her.
He wants to expunge memory of the last witness of the week. Or does he understand the importance of her brief appearance? Probably not.

Unless it’s held after sundown; that might be a problem.


Posted by at No comments:

Do I Repeat Myself? Very Well Then, I Repeat Myself

It’s not meant as comforting so much as explanatory, but if you take the time (especially as a former law student, like Dahlia Lithwick) to read the case most often cited in the arguments, things make more sense. It provides the vocabulary, the context, and the concepts under consideration.

I don’t expect even lawyers to have a peerless insight into Supreme Court cases being argued, but there was basically one case being discussed yesterday, and it provided everything from the relevance of Marbury to the concept of “private action.” If you want to understand why the Justices were talking the way they were, that’s the place to start. Then you can intelligently critique their positions (excluding your humble host from those who could offer a better critique).

It ain’t rocket science. 🚀 
Posted by at No comments:

The Poster Child For Court Reform

As I’ve said, Alito is the best living reason for Supreme Court term limits in line with federal judges (you’ll have to read the article). And I’m a little curious as to how the Court would challenge, or overturn, such laws without someone bringing the case before them. And who would have standing to do that?

😈
Posted by at No comments:

Grey Lady Down!

Gee, what’s this all about? Seriously, NYT, you’re not going to win this one:
Posted by at No comments:

😴

Well, Trump has had his nap today. Despite multiple eyewitness accounts over the first two weeks of the trial, I’m sure Snopes says there is still no evidence of this.
"Trump walks in every day with a big stack of papers that appear to be news articles carefully culled for his own reading," MSNBC analyst Lisa Rubin said Friday. "Reading his good press is keeping him at least more energized." He is always accompanied by one of his lawyers directly adjacent to him now when they go to these long and extensive sidebars," Rubin said. 
"The strategy is twofold. One, to make sure he always has company and doesn't seem sort of diminished by his solitariness, and the second goal is to keep him awake." 
"I just want to clarify that point," Jansing said. "A lawyer will actually change seats to be sitting next to Donald Trump when the others may have gone up to the bench?" 
"That's absolutely true," she said.
"Pics or it didn’t happen!”—Snopes

And remember when Trump was going to attend all the sidebars?

😈
Posted by at No comments:

🎂

Trump married Melania in 2005. According to Pecker’s testimony (which was “ blockbuster” and “really great,” according Trump), Trump had affairs the entire period between 2005 and 2015. To be fair, Trump now says that’s a picture of Marla Maples. Is there a birthday card for that?
Posted by at No comments:

Counsel Against Despair

Sometimes legal Twitter doesn’t make me want to gouge my eyes out.
Posted by at No comments:

“Maggie Haberman Is A Big Fat Stinky Liar!”

Frankly, I’m of two minds over who wins that one. Could be the jury sees it as a crude attempt to elevate Trump (especially after Pecker put him in the sewer), or the State worrying too much about something so minor. I agree with the State, but what does the jury think? Do they think Trump’s a pompous ass? Or do they think the State is being petty? Generally, insisting on defying the judge is not a winning strategy….

If course Trump snoozing through his trial while his lawyers ignore it in hopes the jury won’t notice…priceless!
Posted by at No comments:

Quick Question

Basically, their defense is going to look like this: 
1. People brought salacious stories about celebrities and political figures to the Enquirer all the time looking to sell them. 
2. The Enquirer paid for stories all the time. 
3. Sometimes the Enquirer didn't run those stories for a variety of reasons. 
4. Sometimes those celebrities and political figures got the Enquirer to kill the stories by granting access to the Enquirer by doing exclusive interviews. 
5. None of them were prosecuted for it.
What does that have to do with Trump feeding fake stories about his political opponents to Pecker? Or do they put Trump on the stand for rebuttal? And aside from Schwarzenegger, none of those celebrities were running for public office.

I’m not saying this is a bad defense. But on redirect the State could make the point. It maintains the tie between Pecker’s testimony and turning the misdemeanor into a felony.

So Trump’s lawyer isn’t exactly stripping the bark off. It’s a tough job, though. I don’t think they’re “going easy” on Pecker for fear of what else he’ll say, but if they challenge him with supposed evidence that indicts his credibility, sooner or later they have to present that evidence. “Don’t let your mouth write checks your ass can’t cash” is true in jury trials, too. Most of the best evidence in direct opposition to these witnesses is Trump. So the best criminal defense is not a Perry Mason-like presentation of evidence, but a defense that challenges the state’s case and ability to get beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s hard to see them getting there, though.
That was yesterday, after the jury had left the courtroom. But you can be sure the State will come back to that, to poke holes in the defense strategy.

And ‘round and‘round it goes.
Posted by at No comments:

Nixon v Fitzgerald v Trump v Immunity

 Nixon v Fitzgerald was the primary topic of conversation in the Court argument over Trump’s immunity claim. It was also the blueprint for the argument; but a blueprint read sideways and upside down, to build a conclusion with little to no legal foundation at all.

The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts. 
(c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office. 
 (d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.
That’s the summary. Doesn’t look good, does it? Pay attention to something the arguments today didn’t (much): The difference between “civil” and “criminal.”

The opening of the relevant part of the majority opinion starts with this:
This Court consistently has recognized that government officials are entitled to some form of immunity from suits for civil damages.
The opinion goes on to identify cases in support of this proposition. So this is an important proposition. It sums up here:
Our decisions concerning the immunity of government officials from civil damages liability have been guided by the Constitution, federal statutes, and history. Additionally, at least in the absence of explicit constitutional or congressional guidance, our immunity decisions have been informed by the common law. See Butz v. Economou, supra, at 438 U. S. 508; Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, at 424 U. S. 421. This Court necessarily also has weighed concerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government.
Here, this will probably disturb you:
Applying the principles of our cases to claims of this kind, we hold that petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. We consider this immunity a functionally mandated incident of the President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history. Justice Story's analysis remains persuasive: 
"There are . . . incidental powers belonging to the executive department which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions which are confided to it. Among these must necessarily be included the power to perform them. . . . The president cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office, and, for this purpose, his person must be deemed, in civil cases at least, to possess an official inviolability."
Now pay careful attention; some of this doesn’t say what you may think it says:
In defining the scope of an official's absolute privilege, this Court has recognized that the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity's justifying purposes. Frequently our decisions have held that an official's absolute immunity should extend only to acts in performance of particular functions of his office. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. at 438 U. S. 508-517; cf. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 430-431. But the Court also has refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support. See, e.g., Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. at 161 U. S. 498 (privilege extends to all matters "committed by law to [an official's] control or supervision"); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564, 360 U. S. 575 (1959) (fact "that the action here taken was within the outer perimeter of petitioner's line of duty is enough to render the privilege applicable . . ."); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 435 U. S. 363, and n. 12 (judicial privilege applies even to acts occurring outside "the normal attributes of a judicial proceeding"). In view of the special nature of the President's constitutional office and functions, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the "outer perimeter" of his official responsibility.
This is toward what I mean:
The existence of alternative remedies and deterrents establishes that absolute immunity will not place the President "above the law."  For the President, as for judges and prosecutors, absolute immunity merely precludes a particular private remedy for alleged misconduct in order to advance compelling public ends.
"Private remedy” should catch your eye. That’s a key phrase. Let’s go to CJ Burger’s concurring opinion:
The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims. Moreover, a President, like Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides -- all having absolute immunity -- are not immune for acts outside official duties. [Footnote 2/2] Ante at 457 U. S. 753-755. Even the broad immunity of the Speech and Debate Clause has its limits. [Footnote 2/3].
Burger then cites a case relied on by the dissent, to reject it:
First, it is important to remember that the context of that language is a criminal prosecution. Second, the "judicial process" referred to was, as in United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J., sitting at trial as Circuit Justice), a subpoena to the President to produce relevant evidence in a criminal prosecution. No issue of damages immunity was involved either in Burr or United States v. Nixon. In short, the quoted language has no bearing whatever on a civil action for damages.
John Dean started me on this pursuit. He quoted from Fitzgerald, but attributed the language to Burger’s concurring opinion: But it’s actually from Justice White’s dissent, which curiously seems to be the guiding force of the arguments before the Court in Trump’s case. This, first, is the full quote from the dissent:
Taken at face value, the Court's position that, as a matter of constitutional law, the President is absolutely immune should mean that he is immune not only from damages actions but also from suits for injunctive relief, criminal prosecutions and, indeed, from any kind of judicial process. But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Similarly, our cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution. Supra at 457 U. S. 765-766.
The reference is to this language in the majority opinion:
Constitutional immunity does not extend to those many things that Senators and Representatives regularly and necessarily do that are not legislative acts. Members of Congress, for example, repeatedly importune the executive branch and administrative agencies outside hearing rooms and legislative halls, but they are not immune if, in connection with such activity, they deliberately violate the law. United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 (1972), for example, makes this clear. Neither is a Member of Congress or his aide immune from damages suits if, in order to secure information deemed relevant to a legislative investigation, he breaks into a house and carries away records. Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606 (1972). Judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages, but only when performing a judicial function, and even then they are subject to criminal liability. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U. S. 24, 449 U. S. 31 (1980); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 414 U. S. 503 (1974). The absolute immunity of prosecutors is likewise limited to the prosecutorial function. A prosecutor who directs that an investigation be carried out in a way that is patently illegal is not immune.
Much of the argument before the Court was clearly drawn from the dissent in Fitzgerald. There’s a lengthy analysis there of the Constitutional history of the Presidency, including references made in the argument to comments from the Constitutional Convention. Inaptly referenced and incorrectly applied, often used to support conclusions drawn in opposition to the majority and dissenting opinions of Fitzgerald. But that’s the primary problem with the argument: Fitzgerald was about immunity from a civil lawsuit. It explicitly rejected governmental immunity (for any government official) for criminal liability.  The argument in the Court obscured this central point: that civil immunity has nothing to do with criminal immunity. Even the majority in Fitzgerald recognized this. If the court grants Trump even colorable immunity, which would have to be established through some manner of test, it would be inventing that immunity out of whole cloth. There is simply no support for it in the case law reviewed by, and relied on, in arguments before the Court.

(The greatest irony is that much of the argument in Fitzgerald, in all three opinions, was echoed in the Trump arguments, by Trump and many of the justices. But the reasoning in Fitzgerald should have ended the argument after an hour. Rather like Dobbs, the Court seems once again bent on creating its own legal history and law.)
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Explain To Me Again Why There Has To Be A Test?

"Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

My literary way of asking, if a coup d’etat is the test, isn’t it too late to apply it?

“How many troops does the Court have?”

All of these “tests” apply after the fact. At what point is it too late to apply the next test? 
Posted by at No comments:

New York, New York, It’s A Wonderful Town!

Why does the press keep doing that? Trump says the same thing over and over. 🥱  Trump’s idea of a “good day.” Trump doesn’t have a clue what’s going on. This isn’t just fear of what Pecker might start reminiscing about (that would actually spark a mistrial, so it won’t happen). This is bone-deep ignorance. Pecker has testified for three days now, without cross-examination yet. Trump’s defense team hasn’t had a good day yet. We can safely surmise that’s the report Trump got. Though I agree that’s probably not right.
Posted by at No comments:

This Is Also Why The Court Should Not Be Ruling On Hypotheticals

Alito is still the best living argument for term limits for Justices. Not what oral arguments should be about, IOW.
Posted by at No comments:

The Only Thing Scary About Lara Trump…

...is how dim she is. Ed. Note: does the RNC have the money to train 100,00 poll watchers? Doesn’t Trump need the money for his lawyers?
Posted by at No comments:

Pretty Much What Justice Jackson Said

The legal doctrine of appeals is that the court, especially the High Court, limit itself to the facts and parties before it rather than act as a “super-legislature.” “Change the facts, change the outcome” is not similarly a legal doctrine, but it is how case law and legal reasoning work. The general principle of the tort of assault, say, rests on the recognized elements of the tort, and the facts presented by the case. There is no one rule for all cases of alleged civil assault. One if the things you learn in Torts is that the concept of “offensive contact” is a fact-specific one. The Court does not have to establish, in Justice Jackson’s phrase, a “bucket of official acts” v. private ones, based solely on this case. Rule on the facts before the Court, and leave the future, to the future.

That, I fear, this Court will not do; and working out the parameters of presidential immunity in this one case could therefore take…years.
Which is how the lower courts understood it: on these facts, is former President Trump entitled to immunity? The majority of the Supremes went haring after the defense of the Imperial Presidency. Which was not the issue presented, by the facts or the parties. Oh, Trump argued it that way. But the Court could have fairly and reasonably swatted that aside. Really the factual and legal issue, isn’t it? Does the President have immunity to any extralegal attempt (or illegal one) to retain office? To be fair, that issue was actually recognized in arguments. And the justices didn’t seem overly impressed with Trump’s argument. But three hours? Really? It’s not (it shouldn’t be) that nuanced an issue. Especially on these facts as presented by these parties. A point the DOJ made very well; again, on the facts of the 2020 election, the 60+ failed lawsuits, etc. The legal issue presented by the facts. And how in the world can those facts POSSIBLY raise the issue of whether such actions are within the powers of the POTUS? Because if they do, then every election going forward will prompt a constitutional crisis as the losing incumbent goes to court to establish his authority to use whatever extra-legal authority is available to remain in office. And as C in C, that arguably includes using the military. And we’ll only know if it’s a coup four years later, when the Supreme Court finally gets around to it. Of course, by then… In my hypothetical, we’d need several years in Court to work that out. Which always falls to the”Rich White Man Privilege” rule. Is it a coincidence that most of the strongest critics of this case on the High Court are women of color?

I think not. 🧐 
Posted by at No comments:

“All The News That Fits”

Unrelated, but now I understand why Trump wanted to be in D.C. today: that’s where the attention is. I’m listening to uninterrupted arguments (no ads on a station that runs 15 minutes of ads every 10 minutes) before the Court on Trump’s case. There was even a guy outside the courthouse yelling “HEY, FAKE NEWS!” as reporters talked to TeeVee cameras, which is what Trump wants to do himself. Can’t tell you what’s going on in NYC right now.

I’m also not getting anything out of these arguments (except minor dickishness from Kavanaugh, who really is a lightweight). Nothing like the desperate efforts yesterday to let the states make women suffer in pregnancy, apparently because that’s what the Bible says (Genesis 3:16. Perhaps I exaggerate, but the lack of concern for the mother struck me as incomprehensible). Interesting discussion, but I don’t think you can draw much from it except the court is helping Trump by delaying this trial.
Definitely best-case scenario. But I still don’t think Trump will return to office, and these cases won’t go away if he loses the election. But the money Trump can raise, will.

He’s screwed, IOW. The mills of God grind slowly; but they grind exceeding fine.
Posted by at No comments:

“A Very, Very Nice…He’s A Nice Guy”

One of the most damaging aspects of the current case is that day in and day out for the next six to eight weeks the public will be given examples of how Trump lies, surrounds himself with liars, and has in fact made a profession of lying," Rothkopf wrote. 
"That almost does not do his business association with lying justice. He is alongside friends and associates like Rupert Murdoch, the late Roger Ailes, Vladimir Putin, the FSB, the Internet Research Agency, the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, and Christopher Ruddy, one of the pioneers of the Misinformation Industrial Complex." 
There's no aspect of Trump's life that's not built on lies — his political and business careers, his marriages, his height and his weight, even his golf abilities — and Rothkopf said this trial shows why he has fought so hard to avoid appearing in court where the truth might finally be exposed and he could be held to account for his inherent fraudulence. 
“Trump is not a man who lies. Trump is a lie," Rothkopf wrote. "Trump is a fabrication of the mind of Trump. Trump is a fictional character who has fictional achievements and fictional wealth. He is no more real than the tales of visitors from outer space that are so popular with his partners in prevarication at the National Enquirer. 
"In some respects, it is no surprise he has become the world’s most notorious liar. He has had quite a lot of success lying and then lying about his lies."
"I was talking to a friend after David Pecker's testimony, as somebody who knows David Pecker and Donald Trump," Scarborough said. "I said, it's interesting — David Pecker just blew this case wide open against Donald Trump, yet nothing on Truth Social. 
My friend started laughing and said, 'You will never hear Donald Trump say anything bad about David Pecker.' [He] then suggested that, you know, he knows a lot more about Donald Trump than Donald Trump would want people to know. Listen to this, again, after this guy just blew open the case against him." 
Trump told reporters that, "David has been very nice, very nice – he's a nice guy." Meanwhile, he could be held in contempt for violating a gag order by attacking Cohen and Stormy Daniels, both of whom could testify in the trial. 
... 
"Whoever your friend is, I think is correct," Sharpton said. "When Donald Trump says David has been nice, when David got on the stand and just about nailed his legal coffin in terms of this trial, it is because he knows he's been nice not to tell all the other things he may know about Donald Trump. 
“If you have a guy that knows 100 things and he only testifies to 10, you say he is a very nice guy because you don't want the other 90 to drop out."
Can’t let ALL the lies out.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

🦍

Sure he is.

 

I’d say Watters was trolling us all, but I’m not sure Trump appreciates being compared to an ape. 🦧 

I’m sure the ape doesn’t like the comparison.
Posted by at No comments:

🎶Tin Soldiers And Nixon Comin’🎶

But you can arrest them, right, Speaker Johnson?

Welcome to Texas. I’m sure all the defenders of police action against college students in New York City are happy now.

Nobody does irony like Texas does irony. I’m pretty sure those jack-booted thugs will hang around to root out DEI on campus, since the Lege outlawed it in the last session.

Thank God DEI is not anti-semitism, huh?
It was fun while it lasted.
Posted by at No comments:

🎶Four Dead In O-Hi-O🎶

Wouldn’t that be up to the Governor of New York? Or is Biden supposed to invoke the Insurrection Act over a handful of campus assholes in New York City?

Like I say, what could go wrong with the National Guard on campus?
Posted by at No comments:

Except for DEI

Nobody can talk about DEI. 

You can’t be a transgender or gender nonconforming teacher in Texas. Soon, anyway. So you can censor or silence viewpoints you disagree with., so long as you’re a Republican legislator in Texas.
Posted by at No comments:

Blah Blah Blah

"Because he thinks he is above the Supreme Court, he is prohibiting me from going to the presidential immunity hearing where some of the great legal scholars will be arguing the case — the most important case in many years on the Supreme Court," Trump told Fox News Digital.
First question: would he stay awake?

Second question: what would he get out of it? Other than maybe hearing his name mentioned?



Yeah, pretty much like that.
Posted by at No comments:

It’s A Real Thing

It's a thing, and it's real:
Special gold-tone ceremonial White House key released in very limited quantities during the presidency of Donald Trump. The key measures 8″ x 2.5″ with both sides of the bow featuring the seal of the President of the United States of America, and both sides of the shaft engraved with text: “Key to the White House” and “President Donald J. Trump.” Includes its original handsome wooden display box, 9.25″ x 4″ x 1.5″, with the underside of the lid featuring an artistic depiction of the north portico of the White House, and the top of the lid laser-engraved with presidential seal. In very fine condition. This White House-exclusive key was specially made for and presented to foreign dignitaries and other VIPs during the Trump-Pence administration.
Why it exists is another matter:
Trump’s sense of ownership of the building extended even to a souvenir he had created: a “key to the White House.” In his book “Breaking History,” Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner described the tchotchke.
“When Trump met with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], he whipped out his signature gift — an oversize bronze ‘key to the White House’ in a wooden box carved with the presidential seal. Trump had designed the key himself to give to special guests.” 
" ‘This is the first key I’m giving to anyone,’ he said. ‘Even when I’m not president anymore, you can walk up to the front gate of the White House and present it, and they will let you in.’ "
— "Breaking History," Jared Kushner 
Kushner writes that he “tried to keep from laughing” at the presentation. 
Understandably. It is not the case that presidents can simply grant other people lifetime access to the White House. Not only because of the security implications but, again, because the house isn’t the president’s to offer to others. Trump was allowed to stay there by the people; that grant isn’t transferrable.
This is Trump, so I’m a little curious about who paid for this souvenir, and why Trump still has one.

And “Trump designed the key himself”? I’m old enough to remember when Carter was criticized for reports (probably apocryphal) that he concerned himself with the schedule for the White House tennis court.

Gold-tone. Trump’s name. Trump designed. It all checks out. Trump is the stain on the White House it will take a century or more to eradicate.
Posted by at No comments:

Eric IS The Smart One

Apparently she had just learned the consent decree out of New Jersey (for GOP poll watchers harassing black and Latino voters) had expired. But what she’s saying is aligned with “81 states.”

I just voted (school board election) with a relatively new process meant to generate a paper trail. None of the volunteers who checked my registration and gave me the log in code, ever touched the ballot sheet. They took my driver’s license (to scan it), and handed it to me, and the slip with the code on it. But no one touched the ballot sheet except me.

I put that in the machine, cast my vote, printed the ballot, and put it in a scanner which kept the paper and recorded my vote. Nobody touched that sheet of paper but me. And no one will, except persons authorized by law to do so.

Lara Trump is not making even empty threats. She’s simply as dumb as a ream of blank paper ballots.
According to Cupp, the trial distracts the public from the fact that the GOP is on the defensive when it comes to subjects like abortion and fallout from the overturning of Roe v. Wade, for which Trump has taken credit.
Well, I guess that explains this: And this: The GOP remain strategic geniuses. Dems remain in disarray.
Posted by at No comments:

“Sometimes I Think The Narrative Is A Great, Grey God…”

Confessions of an NYT political reporter.

The narrative is the fox being chased by the baying hounds, who never catch it, even after the hunt is over. And yet the Narrative is all, and must never be forsaken or questioned.

Honestly, reading political coverage in a Presidential election year is like that scene from 1984 where the enemy and ally switch places in mid-speech, and no one notices.
Posted by at No comments:

“Those Who Do Not Learn From History…”

Because that worked so well at Kent State!

(Young people in government is not always a good thing.)

🎶 Tin soldiers and Nixon coming/We’re finally on our own/This summer I hear the drumming/Four dead in Ohio.” 🎶
Posted by at No comments:

Behold The Power Of Government

When the people in government know what the fuck they’re doing, and understand national and world security apart from their petty personal attempts to rig elections with National Enquirer-style fictions.
Posted by at No comments:

The Narrative Catches Up As Reality Takes A Breather

What was obvious to sentient beings for 8 years finally becomes “conventional wisdom.”
Posted by at No comments:

When The Walls Fell

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Funny that’s not having any effect.
"We have a Rigged Judge, who is working for the Democrat Party and refuses to terminate this 'case,' which should have never been brought by Soft on Crime Alvin Bragg," Trump posted at 2 a.m. on Truth Social. 
"Judge [Juan] Merchan should be immediately removed, and the Appellate Courts have to take over. That also applies to Corrupt Judge [Arthur] Engoron, who knew I did nothing wrong, and still fraudulently fined me $500 Million Dollars while having no knowledge of Valuation, Finance, or in any way what he was doing. Same with Judge Kaplan, who allowed a woman, who I have never met (celebrity photo line does not count!), and know nothing about, to get a lawless judgment of $90 Million Dollars. New York Justice is in shambles, and only the Appellate Courts can save it."
Except the courts can’t (or won’t, because they’re rigged, too), so the GOP must.
A Republican doesn’t stand a chance," Trump raged in his overnight post. "This is not Justice." 
"This New York Cabal, run by Crooked Joe Biden’s White House, is a hit job on a Political Opponent the likes of which the USA has never seen before," Trump added. "For the Good of our Country, it must be stopped. The Crooked Joe Biden Witch Hunts have to be ended. REPUBLICANS IN WASHINGTON MUST TAKE ACTION!"
"MOMMY!”
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)