Sunday, July 07, 2024

Now Report On…

Trump ranting in public about:

The dangers of windmills 
Of being electrocuted by sinking boats with batteries 
Over 150 million undocumented immigrants in only 3 years 
“Black jobs”
The “Deep State”
Biden coordinating/controlling all four criminal trials against Trump, including 2 state cases 
Obama actually running the Biden Administration 
How he ran against Obama in 2016
How he won the election in 2020
Washing Machines 
Water pressure in showers
Shampoo 
Tents in airports 
How Hannibal Lecter is a great guy who said nice things about Trump
How Joan Rivers definitely voted for Trump in 2016, even though she died in 2014.
How Biden had been forced to withdraw from the race for President 

And dare to call it “obvious signs of cognitive decline.”

I double dog dare you.


🔥 Week

The end (which doesn’t show up here) is the interesting bit:
The bottom line is that once again it is evident that the constitution is not capable of protecting the country from someone as pathological as Trump.
And clocks don’t tell time and books can’t read themselves and interpretation is really the only claim we have to knowledge.

The Constitution is not a being that works like a trained dog or an educated lawyer. It can only do what we say it does. Why does the VRA not implement the 15th amendment? Because John Roberts said it doesn’t. Why are Supreme Court justices appointed for life? Because they said so. That’s not in the constitution, or arguably even conceived there. The phrase is “hold their offices during good behavior,” which more reasonably means “not removed for political purposes, but has been interpreted to mean “until death do us part” for the Supreme Court Justices. Oddly, the Constitution hasn’t pushed back against that reading.

Nothing is capable of saving the country from anyone except we, the people.
Not, for emphasis, “we, the pundits and journalists:”

Saturday, July 06, 2024

I Solemnly Swear I Am Up To No Good

Because he no longer backs Biden? Or because he knows something he says will be turned against Biden? It’s the only way to be sure. It ends on or before July 22, 2024. It's not okay if the “other guy” does it.  The media is almost all gossip, but not necessarily all lies. There are no plots. But none of that substantiates the criticism of Biden, either.  A bit too much false dichotomy there, tbh.

Mischief managed.

Either/Or

Journalists make lousy historians.

They want the narrative to be neat and clean and straightforward. And when it isn’t, they suspect a shifting set of excuses. And when it is, they suspect an invented narrative.

When so often the truth is neither/nor.  And certainly in between.

(When was the last time you saw “shifting explanations” used in a story about Trump?  Maybe it will appear in connection with “Project 2025.” Only because that isn’t yet “old news.” But we’ll see if it happens even then.)

FAKE NEWS!!!

FROM FAKE VOTERS!!!!

But…But…But…TeeVee!

Regarding The Recognition Of The Ten Commandments


If we’re going to look at the Ten Commandments, or indeed the Bible, as important to American history, we have to acknowledge the emphasis on the commandments is particular to a peculiar bent of Christianity. The Christianity that wants to put certain people in charge, and to be in charge of others.

And.besides, if the idea is that America is a Christian nation, why not emphasize the words of Jesus?

“Congratulations, you poor! God's domain belongs to you! 

 “Congratulations, you hungry! You will have a feast.” 

 “ Congratulations, you who weep now! You will laugh.”

 I actually think those are a lot clearer than “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s ass.” Which, like “ Don we now our gay apparel,” means something quite different than it did originally. And of course, we have to include the curses: 🤬

 “Damn you rich! You already have your consolation!

  “Damn you who are well-fed now! You will know hunger.

 “Damn you who laugh now! You will learn to weep and grieve.”

I’m sure there’d be some initial objection to the language itself. But it would be instructive to have a discussion on what these curses mean. As well as the clear symmetry of the congratulations and the damnations. These are also easier to understand on their face than what “taking God’s name in vain” means; or what adultery is; or what “graven images” are (and why we allow them). The main objection, however, would probably be that it undermines “law and order,” which is the usual reason for promoting the commandments (out of context, frankly). The Beatitudes, in other words, don’t promote control of the many by the few.

 Of course, all of this actually belongs in the context of a faith community. These are not words to be bandied idly, turned into false idols, worshipped for how we think they give us power. That’s why I prefer makarioi (Luke’s Greek, translated here as “congratulations. “Poor,” by the way, is ptochoi,” or “destitute.” Those with nothing.) over “Thou shalt not.” But I also prefer the word of God not be treated like advertising slogans or virtue signals. It ignores their meaning entirely, and disrespects their purpose.

That’s It. I’m Out.

I expect to see that one as a headline in the NYT before long.

I really think I’m taking a vacation until August. At least.

(I really love the idea that replacing Biden at the convention solves all the Democrats’ problems. And when that doesn’t work, they’ll blame Biden anyway. It’s always a win-win for the pundits.)

(Not to mention I’m beating this dead horse into dust. “Man got to know his limitations.”)

How About The NYT Pipeline?

 If you switch this from “medical event” to “bad TeeVee” performance, is Sen. Lee’s response any more sensible? Or partisan?

Or necessary?

What am I missing, here?

Press Beatdown

Jane Mayer redeems herself: Because, you know, polls in July ALWAYS predict election outcomes in November. The other POV on that poll: And the word from the Beltway again: I never thought I’d look forward to August….

(Sarcasm Font Here, Too)

Where in the world would a retired Senator get that idea? Certainly not from media reports…

Meanwhile, 
I may just turn off my phone until August. Political Twitter is talking way too much shite. Exactly. Especially me.

Old News

In her podcast "Ball of Thread," she claimed connections of Trump's allies with foreign governments, particularly Russia, left him reeling as he tried to become president — and filled with conspiracy theories about secretive "deep state" dealings. 
Trump team members Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn were all targets of FBI investigations into ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. 
When it comes to Page, Wheeler explained, "Starting years ago, Russian intelligence ... had started cultivating him, and until 2013, the CIA would go to him and say, 'Hey, do you have these Russian friends?' 
The CIA stopped talking to Page in 2013, but the Russians didn't stop building the relationship and, after a 2015 indictment, a suspect gave the CIA a description of somebody they were working with. It fit Page. 
In 2016, the CIA reached out to Page, saying they wanted to talk to him about the Russian spies trying to recruit him. Page was open to it, saying he told the Russians he wouldn't snitch on America. 
"Remember, he was a business consultant, and he gave them non-public, non-classified information," said Wheeler. "And later on, he would say to the FBI, "I think that's good. I think it's okay to share non-public information with known Russian spies." 
Then there was Papadopoulos, a former member of the foreign policy advisory panel to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. In 2017, he pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about Russian contacts in 2016. In speaking to another informant, Papadopoulos claimed, "Yeah, I don't want Trump to win. I just want to exploit my access to him. I can make the most money if he loses and I can exploit my access to him." 
Others had similar connections. 
And Trump, according to Wheeler, believes the FBI's focus on these contacts was aimed at hurting him. 
"And that is the birth of Trump's victimization. That is the birth of something Trump needed to be true from that point forward," said Wheeler. 
"And he found ways to make it true two or three times down the road. That is the birth of Trump's claim, which most MAGAs believe as if it's the Ten Commandments. That the deep state went out after Trump in 2016, that the deep state wiretapped Donald Trump in 2016 and tried to take him down That's where this assault on the deep state really comes from."
Old news. But “Everyone in Washington” is concerned with the ABC interview. It’s all Biden’s fault for making the Beltway talk about this.
I understand you can't turn on the television or get on the internet without seeing some pundit talking about how I need to drop out of the race. 
Nonsense. 
I want you to ask yourself, what have these people been right about lately? Seriously. Think about it. 
They were wrong when they said I couldn't win the Democratic nomination in 2020.   
They were wrong when they said we wouldn't beat Trump (and there were many) months later. 
They were wrong when they predicted massive Democratic losses in 2022. Remember the red wave? 
They were wrong when they said we couldn't take on the NRA and pass the most significant gun safety legislation in three decades. 
They were wrong when they said we couldn't take on big Pharma and allow Medicare to lower the cost of prescription drugs. 
They were wrong when they said we could never take on the oil companies and pass the most significant climate change legislation in the history of the world. 
And they are wrong again today. 
Folks, listen. Forget the pundits. 
As long as we are in this together -- me and you -- not only are we going to beat Trump again this November, but we are going to go on to do what many think impossible in my second term: codify Roe, ban assault weapons, expand Social Security, and more. 
But I cannot do this alone, and I've never needed you more than I do today. Everyone is looking to see if the grassroots support we need to win is still there. 
I've seen it since the debate, but we have to keep going. So please:
Meanwhile, Biden makes it an excuse for fundraising. They’re practically giving him an excuse to run as an outsider. Which I never would have thought was possible. JMM is in New York (the BosWash). The Biden delegates going to Chicago are from all over the country. What do they say? Meanwhile, the bored political press needs something between now and August besides the dull routine of the convention confirming the primary results: I think the delegates have a say, and it’s not necessarily what the pundits say. And Biden has a point: the political press has been so out of touch with the electorate the Democrats have been “over performing” since 2018. Stephanopolous told Biden no incumbent has been re-elected with such low approval numbers. Then again, no incumbent with such low unemployment numbers has ever not been re-elected. So what does the future hold?

Probably nothing the pundits predict; including the outcome of the convention.


Press Beat

Granted, the Epstein documents are no better founded than the Politico story. But it would still be worth a conversation; well, as much as a President fundraising by letting people overnight in the White House. A) Olivia Nuzzi. Jane Mayer is basically saying: “It’s in print , it must be true!” She’s better than this. Then again: News = gossip.

B) “Everyone” is the people engaged in the “two conversations in Washington.” 

This is the silly season. To put it as bluntly as Michael Steele did.
After proclaiming, "I just have never seen such an absolute creation of a wasteland around a candidate by his own people," Steele took aim at Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) for leading the charge against Biden. 
Speaking about Warner and Democratic powerbrokers, he explained, "You trashed Kamala Harris for the last three years, right? So a lot of folks out there in the electorate and certainly within the party say 'I don't think I want to do that.' Now you are trashing the president and you're going to have another meeting with senators." 
"What the hell are these people thinking?" he exclaimed before adding, " [What] is going to happen when you turn to September and whether it is Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket, or Joe Biden, or, I don't know, pick a random Democrat and make them the nominee?" 
"What do you think Republicans are going to do with that? The only commercial that they have to do is run the stupid things that are being said now," he warned.
Stupid things like “everyone in Washington,” no doubt. Biden’s making them do it.

Friday, July 05, 2024

Every Four Years, Regular As Clockwork

I suspect there is a committee that decides who gets to write it each quadrennium.

Invoke the 25th!

He’s obviously mad as a hatter!  🎩  Obviously. 🙄 

MORE COWBELL!!

I am enjoying this. 😈 If only Trump’s campaign could have kept him quiet until July 18th. 😈

“MR. PRESIDENT! WE CANNOT ALLOW! A MINE!SHAFT! GAP!”

Robert C. O’Brien [Trump’s former National Security Adviser] made his case in the July-August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine that the United States ought to bring back nuclear weapons testing as China and Russia have "modernized their nuclear arsenals."
Why is that a bad idea, apart from, you know, nuclear fallout? Well, it wouldn’t be just us.
Russia withdrew its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in November, though Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the country would not resume nuclear testing “unless the United States does so."
Trump’s frame of reference is the ‘50’s, so he might think the worst problem would be giant ants.🐜 

“And Folks Say We Should Be Worried About Biden”

He’s Back-Pedaling As Fast As He Can

MAGA evangelicals want a constitutional amendment banning abortion in the GOP platform. 
"If the Trump campaign decides to remove national protections for the unborn in the GOP platform, it would be a miscalculation that would hurt party unity and destroy pro-life enthusiasm between now and the election,” [Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America] warned. 
“We are now just one business day away from the platform committee meeting and no assurances have been made. Instead, every indication is that the campaign will muscle through changes behind closed doors.” 
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a platform committee member, went so far as to call restricted access to the platform committee "un-American." 
"I am very concerned about closing down the process,” Perkins reportedly said Thursday. “The Republican Party should not be operating as we point out the left so often does — wanting to silence opposition.”

Feature, Not Bug: A continuing series.

But it's really not a clear test, it's an incredibly murky test, and the court wants it to get worked out in the appellate process," Lithwick offered. "So, you know, the short answer I think we can do a ton of lawyering around this and clearly, that's what [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg's team is going to try to do is lawyer this, and I think Glenn's right."” 
"An awful lot of this conduct by any construction of what is private unofficial acts still seems to survive, But I want to be really clear. I don't know that John Roberts knows what the test is that he's set forth in his opinion on Monday," she added.
Roberts wrote an opinion that garnered 6 votes (really only 5 1/2 votes) based on what I think was a lot of hand waving and intentional vagueness.

There was some speculation the opinion was taking so long because Roberts (as CJ; this expectation always rested on the history of Brown v Board) was seeking unanimity. I think it’s clear now he was seeking as much of a majority as he could get. And he only got what he did (ACB all but dissented on the new rule of evidence) by being as vague as possible. The evidence rule was too specific for ACB, and it’s the clearest part of the ruling. He may have needed that portion just to keep the majority of the other five.

At any rate, the directions to lower courts are vague to the point of opaque. Had he been more specific, though, it would have probably only gotten the support of Thomas and Alito. As it is, the case returns to the trial court, but what that court is supposed to do is anybody’s guess.

There’s enough slack in this the lower courts can decline to go as far as the majority does here. That allows the lower courts to reassert the standard of the law without openly defying the Supreme Court, because they pointed this radical decision, after all. I expect Trump will try for another motion to dismiss, seeking grounds for another interlocutory appeal. The Supremes, when it finally came back, could decide to let the trial play out first. It would be another sign there isn’t a majority quite ready to decide the case they declined to decide before. The Court might, in other words, want to see how the trial court’s conclusions play out in trial, giving the appellate court a full record to review, and the Supreme Court more to employ in whatever decision it finally wants to be responsible for.

The announced rule in Trump v U.S. is disruptive enough; but that’s more the new evidence rule than anything else. Much of the opinion hangs on the structure built by Fitzgerald, which did settle the issue of Presidents and civil cases. Trump (the case) tries to use that reasoning to justify immunity from criminal cases, extending it with the evidence holding. But what does this ruling actually cover, and actually exclude from evidence? Fitzgerald was clear on the former (and never raised the latter. Trump, is clear as mud.

That’s not an accident. I don’t think Roberts had the votes to settle that. I think the Court wants that issue to go back to the lower courts and stay there for, say, a year or five. While we wait and see if we can get a constitutional amendment, or get Congress to rein in this court (there are ways other than court packing). A shot or two across this Court’s bow might remind it, it isn’t as co-equal as it thinks it is.

Thursday, July 04, 2024

We REALLY Have To Talk About Biden

But apparently not in this country?

Was Anyone Fooled?

Anyone? SO SAY WE ALL!

You Got A Mouse In Your Pocket?

Dozens upon dozens of listeners called into the station to express their outrage that Democrats were not standing by the incumbent candidate, Singleton said. 
"Most of them said we're going to stand behind President Biden," Singleton said. "They're behind him, they're not backing down." 
The calls overwhelmed the show's producers, added Singleton. 
"We can't take any more callers," the producers told him. "That's how angry they were with me." 
It wasn't that they did not support and respect Harris, it was that they feared a large number of Americans would not vote for a Black woman, the commentator said. 
"We don't want Trump," Singleton said they told him. "We want Biden." 
Singleton explained that the debate was not a serious issue for his listeners as it was for him. 
"Even if he has some episodes here and there, they didn't really care," Singleton said. "He thought he was a better option."

 So who is “everyone” who must talk about the narrative that Biden did so poorly he must quit? And why are ordinary people more aware of the resistance to a Black woman than any pundit I’ve read? Too true to be acknowledged?

But Biden Is Going To Bed Early!

But Biden’s strategy hit a bump! Which makes it so important that “everyone” (who?) talks about it? Or demands Biden withdraw, if not be removed by the 25th? Are reporters and pundits helplessly in thrall because “everyone is doing it?” Trump’s supporters are literally talking about repealing the 20th century, but this has to be the national conversation because Biden whiffed a debate? (Which he didn’t, actually. His performance was just considered “unsatisfactory.”) Nobody’s even talking about the substance of the debate because, you know…they can’t. Because: reporters and pundits are children, not responsible adults.

 I’ll retire to Bedlam…

Oh Dear!

Oh dear! Oh, dear! Yeah. Biden getting more sleep is real news! 😕 

“A Penny For The Old Guy”


 


Just Calling Balls And Strikes

To win this fight, you first have to persuade these people:
Speaking with the Washington Post's Amy Gardner, Colby Itkowitz and Nicole Markus, one delegate from Michigan, Joshua Ferguson, bluntly stated, "I’m all in, riding with Biden." 
"He has done so much for my community that I’ll back him 1,000%. I’m not concerned. I’m not voting for who’s best on television. I’m voting for who can pass the best legislation, who’s best in Washington, and Biden is definitely that," Ferguson added. 
The Post reports, "Biden’s overall standing among delegates appears to remain strong — for now, at least. Delegates span a wide range of job categories and backgrounds. While some are prominent politicians, the vast majority are local party officials and activists for whom politics is a passion, not a profession. Most delegates who agreed to speak with The Post in recent days have made clear that they continue to support the president and hope he stays in the race." 
20-year-old Kaylee Werner enthused, "I was elected by my community, and I’m going to be obviously voting with them in mind. They put me in this position to vote for President Biden, and I’m excited to show up and do just that.” 
Texan Nancy Nichols, 68, [pushed back at changing her allegiance, stating, "If you are a Biden delegate, you are a Biden delegate, period.” 
Gary Fisher of Las Vegas claimed he was not going to let one debate stumble change his mind. 
“Joe Biden for over 50 years has had the backs of everyday Americans,” he remarked. “And I’m not going to not have his back after one bad performance."
Huh. Nobody from the NYT. No Democratic Congress critters nobody’s ever heard of. No powerless pundits. Just people who will actually vote for the Democratic nominee at the convention.

The pontificating pooh-bahs want you to think they are more powerful than they are. But apart from making loud noises, there really isn’t much they can do.

Remembering My Days In Seminary

It is good to be reminded.
As much as everyone is consumed by SCOTUS and the Trump decision, I have been more moved by a decision that has received little attention, Grants Pass, the case regarding homelessness. For my seminary class, Introduction to Theology…, we have been reading Roberto Goizueta, a Hispanic theologian who writes on liberation theology as it applies in the US and particularly a Theology of Accompaniment (Caminemos Con Jesus: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment) and Hans Jonas, a Jewish theologian writing about morality after Auschwitz (Mortality and Morality: A Search for the Good after Auschwitz). As a weekly reflection for the class I submitted the following: 
Last Thursday evening I was working on my Goizueta reading and was deep into the section on choosing to option for the poor. Such lines as “That is precisely why our society continues to alienate, abandon and exclude the poor- because face-to-face with the poor, one is forced to confront intrinsically relational reality”, [I]n its deepest sense, poverty refers to the act of solidarity with the materially poor, an act undertaken voluntarily as a protest against the evil of material poverty.”, and “This preferential option for the poor, or identification with the least significant, reveals 1) a God who is identified with the poor, who in turn reveals (2) the injustice and idolatry of those who, seeking God elsewhere, deny the poor the dignity bestowed on them by God.” Friday morning I went to work (for those from the synchronous class, I am a full time lawyer by profession) and I logged into a legal site to see the latest decisions being handed down by the Supreme Court. One of those was Grants Pass, a case about an anti-camping ordinance that effectively criminalizes homelessness. The conservative majority of the court upheld the ordinance. As the dissent says, the ordinance criminalizes an essential biological function for those too poor to have a place to live. The homeless are fined, jailed, with the ultimate goal to drive them from the locality. (These fines and incarcerations of course increase their poverty and make it even harder to obtain employment or housing). From my computer screen I can, even without moving my head, look up and look through my office window across the Merrimack River in Manchester, New Hampshire to the far shore where there are often homeless encampments. 
I finished the Goizueta reading over my lunch hour. “We live in a U.S. society, however, for whom the present is divorced from the past and future. It is no accident, then, that this society systematically depreciates its elderly, while abandoning its youth to violence, poverty, and self-hatred.” Yes, our society, including its most august institutions, does this to the elderly, youth and most certainly the poor by any measure. The whole experience has been completely jarring and disassociating. I am not unfamiliar with the realities of poverty. For seven years I volunteered monthly at an inner city soup kitchen and food pantry. We not only served food but sat and ate with our guests. For 5 years to that same program, I led our congregation’s annual project to provide a complete set of a week of groceries to over a hundred families to bridge them when their SNAP benefits ran out to the end of the month. I am not naïve to the incredible challenges the poor face in our US society with a minimal frayed safety net and cultural, racial and other barriers that are near insurmountable. Nearly 35 years of AA meetings has also on a near daily basis put me in contact with addicts, the poor and the homeless. It was seeing the official stamp of approval from our highest court for not only optioning the poor, but the exact opposite of excluding the poor that was so emotionally and spiritually jolting. The SCOTUS decision is not without consequence. Monday, the Manchester mayor, based on the Grant Pass decision, announced the city council would consider an anti-camping ordinance. Tuesday night the council passed the ordinance with immediate effect. Yesterday the police started arresting the homeless. 
Why, as a society, do we want the homeless and poor to be invisible, to literally disappear? Is it our fear, “but for the grace of God do I?”. Is it fear of our own mortality, to see those that on a daily basis live so close to the line of death (and too frequently cross over from overdose, exposure, drowning in the river, violence, untreated illness and more). Both Jonas and Goizueta instead call us into responsibility with the others. With Jonas, “we intuitively recognize in this ontological distinction of man – his capacity for responsibility - not only its essentiality by also a value.” This responsibility extends to those in the future, but I think his call for responsibility is more immediate. 
When discussing Auschwitz (pg. 133), Jonas states “Dehumanization by utter degradation and deprivation preceded their dying, no glimmer of dignity as left to the freights bound for the final solution, hardly a trace of it was found in the surviving skeleton specters of the liberated camps.” 
As Jonus makes brutally clear, responsibility and morality for the future arises from and must include the present. Goizueta calls us into optioning the poor, with added caution that we need to be in relationship with the poor, otherwise we will end up treating them as objects despite our best intentions. “The struggle for social justice will, in the long run, simply perpetuate the dehumanization of poor persons if not undertaken together with poor persons.” 
Jonas and Goizueta both speak of the denial of dignity to those excluded. To start with conferring dignity, by a path of relationship, then accepting responsibility from that dignity and relationship, to finally arrive at a morality that reflects our caring and love for the “other”, the poor, the outsider, the marginalized, the oppressed, seems a parallel of the two theologians. If only we could even begin this journey as a society. 
_________ 
I'll add this to the reflection, the Goizueta writing is the most radical and insightful reading I have had on US culture and a theological alternative thereto. It even puts much of the left to shame, with its recognition that American individualism and ultimately economic individualism over political and religious individualism infects all aspects of our culture. To read and recognize how it can even turn multi-culturalism into a further reinforcement of the dominant culture has been eye-opening. The centrality of relationship and love as fundamental has been deeply affecting.
"The first of all will be last of all and servant of all.” But what would that look like?

JFK Took Naps

He was famous for it.

He was also 46 when he died.

Wednesday, July 03, 2024

Still Unclear About The Concept

According to NBC News, a pair of former DOJ officials "said it would give Trump cover to improperly pressure the Justice Department for his own political benefit — to prosecute an enemy or go easy on an ally — by saying he was executing his official duties as president." One warned: “It gives him tacit approval to keep doing it. It sets him up to do the things he has said: to investigate people and send them to jail.” 
... 
Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, an ongoing Trump loyalist who was indicted alongside him in the Georgia election racketeering case for his role in trying to overturn the results in that state, had a similar — if positive — assessment of that. 
“He can investigate whom he sees fit to investigate, working with the Justice Department,” he said on a podcast this week. “And he can prosecute whom he sees fit to prosecute.”
So Biden can investigate Clarence Thomas, and send him to jail?

Cool.😎 

The Two Candidates

Trump lives in a fantasy land:
He just quit, you know — he’s quitting the race,” Trump can be heard saying in the video. 
“I got him out of the — and that means we have Kamala.” He went on to call Biden a "broken-down pile of crap" and said of Harris, “I think she’s gonna be better” as an opponent, but even so “she’s so bad. She’s so pathetic.”
That’s going to be a surprise to Joe Biden:
Robert, I know the past few days have been tough. I'm sure you're getting a lot of questions. I'm sure many of you have questions as well. 
So, let me say this as clearly and simply as I can: 
I'm running. I'm the Democratic Party’s nominee. No one is pushing me out. I'm not leaving, I'm in this race to the end, and WE are going to win this election.
Yeah, Joe sends me emails almost daily. He likes me. But at least I don’t live in the fantasy world Trump does.
Trump's message claims that he has been exonerated from all crimes, including those in his civil cases. Trump is implying the Supreme Court ruling applies to his property valuation fraud case and his defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll.
This is perfectly public stuff. It’s in print, easily accessible. Trump may be immune for some of his actions surrounding J6 (though even the Gang of Five punted that question). But the documents case is only affected as to evidence; if at all. Same for the felony conviction. The Georgia case? Maybe, but he’ll spend a lot of money fighting that out. The civil cases? Not touched at all.

But he’s free, because that’s the fantasy he lives in. Biden had a bad night. “Widespread anxiety,” we’re told. Trump and his fantasy world, where dictators love him and big, strong men have tears in their eyes? Where his felony conviction has been expunged and all civil judgments against him are null and void?

Yeah, whatever…. I mean, it’s not like he said it on camera. Well, he’s said stuff worse than that on camera, including at the debate, but…

Yeah, whatever.

Proving It

Moms who shoot puppies can’t relate to Kamala. That would be the convicted felon, convicted fraudster, twice found guilty for libeling the same person, who faces three more criminal trials pending? He stands for law and order? Does he even know what that means? But…but…but…haven’t you heard? Widespread anxiety! Reagan had jelly beans. Not nearly as depressing. Isn’t this guy a billionaire? Prove it.

🪩 Dancing The Goalposts Away 💃🏾🕺

The widespread anxieties about Biden’s age-related impairment have increased over time, only to be shushed by his allies.*
"Widespread anxiety" is carrying a lot of baggage 🧳, especially since it’s unattributed (“some people say”) and unattributable. Those anxieties aren’t expressed by the primary voters who chose Biden, or by the contributors even after the debate. If anything, this is a replay of the anxiety of November 2016, et seq. It’s the anxiety of the interregnum between the days before the convention, and Election Day. The period when anything seems possible, and what is all but set in stone might still be rewritten, and what if…?

And now the solution is to get Biden to resign, and if he won’t, invoke every portion of the 25th Amendment until he finally does. And do it in two weeks, so Harris can accept the party’s nomination and somehow convince some states that a vote for Biden counts as a vote for Harris and some other VP candidate.

That’ll keep the lawyers busy.

This is not, in other words, a serious proposal. These are not serious people. But they want desperately to be taken seriously. Especially when there’s a chance to seize the moment and influence the choice of Presidential nominee. It’s their chance to be important. Two weeks before the convention. Last chance to change the dance.

And if they’re wrong? It’s Biden’s fault for being old; and creating so much anxiety.

But if it’s going to be Biden’s fault either way, why should he step aside? He might as well stick to it and go down swinging. Or win. Much more likely he wins.

If you want assurances about the future, go back to believing in Santa Claus. If you don’t want Trump to be President, quit wringing your hands and fucking around. Nobody’s really listening to you, anyway. Biden’s not going anywhere, and nobody else is listening to the whingers.

*Latest opinion piece in The New Yorker.

When Democrats Sound Like Republicans

"I put forth a resolution calling upon the Vice President to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the President of the United States is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office," Roy said at the time. 
Roy, speaking with Baier after the White House declared Wednesday Biden would "absolutely not" drop out of the race, said he took "no great joy" in filing the resolution, but did so out of concerns that Americans are now seeing the "reality" of "what a lot of us have been watching up close and personally in Washington, D.C."
It’s time to reconsider your message.

Power Over The Presidency Is Intoxicating

Pundits as schoolbiy drunks. Perhaps Biden is again fortunate in the foolishness of his enemies. This all certainly has a very familiar ring to it. Yeah, I don’t honestly know who Adam Serwer is either, or why I should listen to him. I do know The Atlantic is more of a rag than ever. (Yes, The New Yorker ran a similar opinion piece. I’m not too impressed with them, either.)

Yes, Biden has said he’s not going anywhere; and this is a usual tactic in the space between the moments before the convention seals the decision, and the moment it does. Last chance, and all that. The effort to make something out of nothing will continue unabated, but their eyes ain’t on the prize.

Force Biden out now, you might as well inaugurate Trump on November 5. Do not pass “Go.” Do not collect $200.00.

What fools these mortals be.

Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and reportedly Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) were the lone sitting House Democrat to make such claims publicly as of Wednesday afternoon, but reports show they had a virtual "vent session" Tuesday evening to address the "donkey in the room." 
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) also told Bloomberg he was not impressed by recent claims that Biden's poor debate performance was just a bad night.
"Siri: name three representatives nobody’s ever heard of.”

And this is not”reality “ TeeVee:
But calls for Biden to withdraw have also been met with pushback from public-facing officials who note that Democrats have already funneled $240 million into his campaign and argue several swing state laws might prevent it.
To illustrate that last remark:
“The problem that any potential replacement for Joe Biden would likely run into is that in many states, including in several key states, the deadline for getting on the ballot has already passed,” Smith told NOTUS.
Something tells me this whole idea is not even half-baked.

Polls Suck And Biden Must Drop Out!

When do those polled take into account that the NYT is gravely concerned and the donors who speak to them are also concerned? It’s not like we can leave this tempest in a teapot to the people!

Oh, and Democratic U.S. representative* in a ruby red state is worried. Clearly the people of the 35th District must be listened to!


*Correcting my error and bad memory. Doggett took the seat king held by Jake Pickle (I remember Jake from my 15 years in Austin, 32 years ago. Doggett’s been in the seat since 1995. In my defense, I was gone by then. Doggett’s a good man, but he’s 77. Maybe he’s too old?

Pretty Sure The Supreme Court’s Already Said That

EOD

There’s been some (ignorant) discussion about LBJ withdrawing his candidacy in late March ‘68, hoping to avoid the blowback of Vietnam. It’s widely agreed he pretty much screwed HHH’s (his VP) chances in the general (they still had conventions in those days).

So there is precedent for the loose talk. It sucks.

There’s also the precedent of McGovern,  who stood behind his VP pick of Eagleton 1000%. Until the donors told him not to, and he switched to Shriver. Was McGovern going to lose anyway? Probably, but he started the race by shooting himself in the foot. The people telling Biden to quit want the whole party to do that.

Biden just played the McGovern card; against them. Forcing him out now is certain disaster. And it will be all on them.

Now hitch up yer britches and git back to it.

Steve Vladeck Is Right. Of Course.

I love it when legal Twitter (the only finer legal mind on the planet is Trump’s!) tries to argue with a law professor. Yes, this Court does blithely set aside precedent when it suits them.  But the logic (or lack there of) behind these complaints doesn’t explain why Roberts didn’t just declare Trump immune on Supreme authority, rather than establish the Goldbergian device of a new rule of evidence all courts must comply with (after they interpret it and the Court, several terms later, has to adjudicate those interpretations).* The answer: because even the Supremes know their limitations (recall they only got 5 votes for that bit).

This case would involve directly overriding state law. Trump v U.S. examined the New York case, but declined to interfere in it directly (state sovereignty; an issue that would completely delegitimize an already shaky opinion. That reach might have kept Alito and Thomas, but certainly not ACB; and probably not Roberts, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh. I wonder if it was discussed…🤔 ?). So the odds of a majority taking it up and approving an injunction are…0.0.

Besides, they’re on vacation. This kind of thing might just piss ‘em off. Anyway, legal Twitter is worth what you pay for it. (Professor Vladeck is a lawyer. His field of expertise is the Federal Courts. The field of expertise of legal Twitter is largely outrage and ignorance.)


*There are rules of evidence that apply to state and federal courts, based on the 14th, 4th, and 5th Amendments. This is the first I know of one based on a doctrine invented by the Court and not even implied in a specific part of the constitution (separation of powers is a derived legal doctrine, not, as the Christian Nationalists love to say, a phrase found in the constitution).  If there is another, I’m sure Professor Vladeck would know.