Friday, March 08, 2024

There’s Got To Be A Morning After

Question: why do a as all the critics sound like they’re talking about Trump?
"The Biden campaign let us let us know the 9:00 hour was the biggest fundraising hour of the campaign," said Lemire, who's also the White House bureau chief for Politico. "Amending it later saying, actually, the 10:00 p.m. [hour] was more, the best two hours of the entire campaign last night."
Speaker Johnson must be so glad he boxed Biden by postponing this speech.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 07, 2024

The (GOP Response) Reviews Are In!

The ghost of Bobby Jindal still haunts the GOP. When will they ever learn? Every self-important girl I knew in high school. (The Lovely Wife wondered if she went to the same high school we did. We both recognized the type.) Pretty much what I saw, with the sound blessedly off. I flashed back to Bobby Jindal. He, too, was the GOP next great hope. Don’t know what he’s doing now… I wasn’t listening; but why am I not surprised? Yeah. Just like the girls I went to high school with. Born in the’50’s and determined never to leave it. We here at Adventus strive to be fair and balanced , presenting all sides without fear or favor.
Posted by at No comments:

Post-SOTU

The Speaker must be so pleased he postponed this speech to tonight. Projection is a harsh mistress. I’m pretty sure it’s “Uncle.” They weren’t listening? That’s it? Not even a nickname? Trump approved GOP response: American Carnage! Third world country! Poisoned by immigrants! You will perish in flames, you and all your kind! Gatekeeper!

In closing: actual line from the GOP response. “Let’s be honest, it’s been a minute since Joe Biden pumped gas, ran a carpool…” That’s where I stopped.

Pretty sure Joe Biden has done that in his lifetime. Pretty sure Donald Trump never has.

Who writes this shit? 💩 

As I told the Lovely Wife: a white woman in an upscale kitchen, sternly lecturing me (I have the sound turned off)? I get that at home already, why do I want it on my TeeVee?
Posted by at No comments:

Meanwhile, In The House…

Capt. (ret) Ronny wants us to think of Trump while listening to Biden. And now we know why Johnson looks so pained and disapproving:
I just have to ask you about the hat," said Rachel Maddow, turning to former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). "Isn't there a rule?" 
"I'm really surprised that she is not being asked to remove that hat," said McCaskill. "It makes me think that Speaker Johnson is really afraid of her." 
"Because there is a rule," said Maddow. "There's a strict rule, no hats for any reason." 
"Especially a hat that is — you know, I'm not aware of any time a hat is allowed on the floor of the Senate," said McCaskill. "I'm not as familiar with the House rules, but you could never wear a hat on the floor of the Senate. So, I'm not sure, other than, if the speaker just doesn't want to have the sergeant-at-arms tell her to remove it, because if he did they would probably remove him from speaker, she'd file a motion." 
MSNBC anchor Joy Reid agreed with McCaskill. 
"The hat is an incredibly tacky choice, by somebody who, it shouldn't be surprising at this point, there's nothing that she does that is surprising but it's open me for the dignity of the office that she holds, regardless of you know, the QAnon stuff, she's a member of the United States Congress, at some point, one would think you would aspire to have a minimal amount of dignity in your presentation, and she has no such aspiration."
Looking pained is the only authority he’s got. They really are as dumb as they seem to be. Really as dumb. Speaker Johnson?

Lisa Desjardins says the GOP was not listening to the speech and didn’t really seem to want to be there. It’s Trump’s party, and if he doesn’t hear his name, he reacts the same way. (and the genius of Biden never mentioning Trump’s name).
Posted by at No comments:

Minds Thinking Alike, Dept.

The Lovely Wife and I were just discussing the Speaker’s discomfort. I wouldn’t have bet against him, but by my watch we’re over 30 minutes in. Joe just got the audience response he wanted. And much earlier this evening: Funny how that didn’t start anything.

Biden is imagining a better future for Americans, and Johnson reacts as if Joe is calling for teen sex for everybody. While threatening to force us all to be Catholics.
😹

Meanwhile the GOP talks back to Joe and he feeds them the facts. He’s done it three times now. Sorry, four (hard to keep up). When will they ever learn?

MTG got her Laken Riley moment. Biden used it to argue (a third time) for the border bill Trump doesn’t want passed. She really is an idiot.

Biden has turned this into the rally Trump wishes he was still having. And in every news broadcast in the country.

😸

I almost forgot that Joe Biden is old. Isn’t he?
Posted by at No comments:

Pre-SOTU

Does she think she’s attending the Oscars and the after-party? I mean, it’s not like there’s a dress code. Expecting to keep her quiet? Or get a handjob? Johnson did postpone the SOTU until after Super Tuesday, which was practically an in-kind donation to Biden’s campaign. The GOP is determined to help Biden every way they can. Even David Brooks remembers how Biden handled the children last year, and expects Biden to win again this year. (PBS commentary just now). Does he think he’s in the line of succession? So is MTG going to keep her coat buttoned and sit quietly?

The speech is expected to start at 10 (EST) now. As soon as Biden quits shaking hands. 
Posted by at No comments:

Looking Forward To The SOTU

Posted by at No comments:

“One Must Come Into Equity With Clean Hands”

"Mr. Trump's current situation is a result of his own dilatory actions. He has had since January 26 to organize his finances with the knowledge that he might need to bond this judgment, yet he waited until 25 days after the jury verdict — and only shortly before the expiration of Rule 62's automatic 30-day stay of judgment — to file his prior motion for an unsecured or partially secured stay pending resolution of post-trial motions. The Court ordered expedited briefing and assured the parties that the motion would be decided as promptly as was reasonably appropriate, but due to the delay in its filing, the Court notified that it could not render any decision as quickly as Mr. Trump requested. Dkt 307. That remains true today."
Any kind of stay is essentially equitable . And you can’t ask for equitable relief if you are at fault. Equity won’t cover for you, in other words. Trump’s lawyers really suck. Good thing Trump beefed them up with a guy two years into his career who’s using Trump to boost his chances to be AG of MO.
Posted by at No comments:

💀 “The Grinning Skull Beneath The Skin”

 I got to see my skull the other day. Not a skull, or a representation: my skull.

It was a dental x-ray for some minor surgery I had. A full view of the jaw and the skull up to the hairline (or so). The jaw and teeth were x-ray white, but the rest was sepia toned. Rather like you expect a skull to look when it hasn’t been bleached white by the sun. The view was similar to that picture, but with some color in it. Not the complete skull, then; but complete enough.

The curious thing was, it looked like a skull. Not like me, I mean, but a skull. Any skull. A human skull. I know artists and scientists can recreate a head from a skull. But to a non-expert, we really do all look (much) the same beneath the skin. Especially as far as our faces go.

We’re just not each that unique. That’s the sobering thing when you see your skull. You think you look like you, but underneath the skin, you look like anyone; and everyone.

Yes, we all know this, abstractly. But learning it in concreto is a much more interesting experience. The brute truth of your own mortality, as it were.

Or maybe it’s just because I’m aging.

☠️

Posted by at 1 comment:

BREAKING NEWS!

Wait for it...

One day before Thanksgiving last year, not long after leaving his job as a federal prosecutor, Scharf had an 11-tweet thread go viral. "Things I learned working as an Assistant US Attorney prosecuting violent crimes in St. Louis, America's murder capital," the first tweet read.

The thread contained a handful of Scharf's takeaways from his time as a federal prosecutor that mirrored nationwide GOP talking points, including supporting police and cracking down on China's fentanyl exports.

(Yeah, you already know what's coming...)

"Scharf talks about things he's learned prosecuting violent crime and America's murder capital, but I'm not aware of a single murderer that he prosecuted in America's murder capital," this prosecutor said.

The assistant U.S. attorney, who asked the RFT not to print his name, stressed that Scharf is obviously a smart man who worked hard during his two years on the job. But when Scharf joined the prosecutor's office in 2020, his political ambitions were apparent from day one, and the perception that the job was merely a stepping stone for him rubbed some people the wrong way.

"He'd been a prosecutor for a little over five minutes and he's talking about Missouri AG," the assistant U.S. attorney says, adding that Scharf came into the job with no prosecutorial experience and mostly handled "getting your feet wet" type cases during his two-year tenure. 

It gets better:

Court records show that of the roughly 150 cases in which Scharf entered an appearance as an assistant U.S. attorney, a little more than half were for gun possession crimes, with “felon in possession of firearm” by far the most common charge. Another fifteen or so cases involved gun possession charges along with other crimes like drug trafficking.

The remaining cases were against people accused of robbery and kidnapping, dealing fentanyl or crack, or who had escaped from halfway houses. None of the cases Scharf prosecuted, much less made an appearance in, involved a murder charge. 

I will remind my gentle readers that your humble host handled on criminal appointment in federal court, a "felon in possession of firearm" case.  The "trial" lasted less than five minutes.  I could have prosecuted that case, and I have NO criminal, defense or prosecution, experience.

The assistant U.S. attorney who spoke to the RFT said that it's not necessarily uncommon for attorneys to come into the office with no prior prosecutorial experience, but they usually stick around for several years and gradually take on more complicated cases.

"Other prosecutors are not just checking the box, literally counting the days from the moment they get there to when they can leave," the former colleague says. He adds, "You'll never be able to convince me that he didn't plan on getting just over two years. So he can say 'years' instead of 'year.'"

And now he's "beefed up" Trump's appellate stable of lawyers?  Yeah, right.

I knew seasoned litigators (worked with them, I mean) who never tried a case on appeal.  That's a whole different practice.  I knew one litigator who took his case to the US Supreme Court, but that was rare.  Really large lawfirms have a separate group of lawyers who just work on appeals.  Most government firms (DOJ, state AG's) have the same.  It's a practice as arcane as bankruptcy.  You don't learn a lot about appellate work from trial work, aside from preserving your error so you can appeal.  Some trial lawyers do appellate work regularly, don't get me wrong.  But the appellate lawyers for a former POTUS should be more experienced than a guy who spent two years doing grunt work and probably appearing in court for more experienced lawyers.  This guy probably had lead on the possession of gun cases, and not much else.

He's a clown in a suit, IOW, who wants to upgrade his political cred by signing on to appeallate briefs for Trump.  This isn't "beefing up."  This is putting on a salami suit and stepping into the dog pound. 

And it doesn't add one thin dime to the fund Trump needs to stop execution of that judgement starting next week.  This is soy beef by-products, at best.

 

Posted by at 2 comments:

It Depends

What do the polls say?
Posted by at No comments:

An Inconvenient Truth

Seems like only yesterday Ashleigh Merchant was testifying before the Georgia Senate:
Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis met with Vice President Kamala Harris before she indicted Donald Trump in his election interference case, according to a lawyer who shared White House records during a Georgia Senate hearing. 
The meeting, according to Attorney Ashley Merchant's testimony, took place on February 28, 2023, just months before Willis indicted Trump in August of that year, Newsweek reported. 
Eighteen other people, including Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, were also indicted on charges of helping Trump in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.  
During her testimony before the Georgia Senate, Merchant said that the mayor of Atlanta was also present for the meeting. 
"My understanding is that it's highly regulated who can access the White House ... so you have to apply ahead of time," Merchant said, adding the White House records showing the meeting are open to the public. 
When asked if there was any information available as to the reason the meeting took place, Merchant said no.
Again, no substantive evidence.
But there was evidence, right there in the room.
February 28, 2023 was the last day of Black History Month. The credibility of these people is somewhere under the wagon rut beneath the snake’s belly.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 06, 2024

And The Swallows Return To Capistrano

"The cliches are your friend.”
Posted by at No comments:

Well, Now I Know…

...where the Thursday/Monday conundrum came from. As Bradley Moss says: 😈
Posted by at No comments:

Yesterday

How about your case for holding off execution of the judgment without posting a full bond in two different courts? Feel good about that?

If you’re lucky, Trump won’t have run out of money and assets before the case is finished ( the state can appeal, too. This could take a few years. Carroll can appeal, too. Trump will run out of money before either of them do.)

And I’ve read their pleadings before. The appeal is gonna suck.
Posted by at No comments:

Legal Matters

This pleading lays out the five categories of applicable conflict of interest identified in Georgia case law, based in cases cited by the defendants.
5 standard for the disqualification of an elected constitutional officer that has never before been recognized in Georgia and that is contrary to decades of case law. The cases relied on by the Defendants can be divided into five categories (1) cases that do not concern disqualification at all but that the Defendants use as a source of flowery and righteous—though inapplicable—language; (2) cases where criminal defense attorneys were disqualified on the basis of divided loyalty, in violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct; (3) cases where a prosecutor had an actual personal interest or stake in the outcome of a prosecution; (4) a single case where a defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial where the district attorney had previously represented the victim in the case; and (5) cases where no actual conflict of interest was shown and disqualification was not proper. The first category of cases is the largest.
This pleading has a lot of hand-waving about “enrichment” because Wade spent money (allegedly) in Willis. There is some attempt to imply this creates a “personal interest” in the prosecution, but it’s hard to see why. One case cited involved a DA whose daughter had a close relationship with the victim. Hardly the case here.

It doesn’t otherwise mention any of the categories in the other pleading, but tries to imagine a conflict based on this kind of hand-waving (or hand-wringing). I.e., citations to cases with facts that could be similar, maybe, somehow, to facts they can’t seem to establish in this case.

The main claim is illustrative. The brief alleges that Wade committed perjury in his divorce case, though precisely how he perjured himself, and in what facts material to the divorce (perjury is not misrepresentation, or a difference of opinion about minor facts), is never established. Alleging perjury needs a bit more than that, to say the least. 

There are several silly points, none really worth the court’s time. My favorite is that Willis’s statement there is no evidence she didn’t pay her way on the trips in question is a lie. But that claim (that she lied) depends on evidence no defendant has been able to present in court. The burden of proof here is not on Willis or the state of Georgia.

Pathetic.

I agree with the angrier critics now: time to toss this steaming pile and shut down this cottage industry.
Posted by at No comments:

I’ve Heard It’s Due Tomorrow…

I’ve heard it’s due Monday.

Kaplan is due to rule any time now. If he gives Trump more time, the 2nd Circuit could say “No, I don’t think so.” Of course, they could do that if Kaplan tells Trump “Sucks to be you.” I don’t know the case law on this, but I don’t see why Trump gets any special privileges over Carroll.

Tick-tock. 🕰️ 
Posted by at No comments:

Looking Backwards

Wouldn’t we unwind the Civil Rights Acts (‘57 and’64) on the way backwards? And what’s left of the VRA? Just to be fair, I mean.

As long as we’re going backwards.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Dear Forbes

Free. "His revenue from 'The Apprentice' and from licensing deals is drying up, and several years ago he sold nearly all the stocks that now might have helped him plug holes in his struggling properties," the 2020 report notes. "And within the next four years, more than $300 million in loans — obligations for which he is personally responsible — will come due."
Tell me again how rich Trump is.

And I think I know why he won’t come up with half a billion dollars in bonds anytime soon.

$90 million is due tomorrow, btw. I don’t think he’s going to make it. 😈
Posted by at No comments:

Asking For A Friend

What’s the history of Elmo being a generous political donor a la Sheldon Adelson or the Koch Brothers? Or George Soros, for that matter? Or maybe Elmo will make a big donation to the RNC.
Posted by at No comments:

This Goose Is Not Laying Golden Eggs

And how much does Ms. Willis make?" Jones asked. 

 "Two hundred and something thousand a year," Merchant said.

 "So your argument is that a person who makes $200,000 a year is actually setting up prosecutions to go on a trip that costs $3,500," Jones observed. "That's your argument?"

 "No, no, not in isolation," Merchant insisted. 

 "I mean, you're talking about in isolation," the senator noted. "I'm talking about what's in [legal] briefs. I don't know what else you may be speculating about. I'm just talking about what's in briefs that says this is, this is the benefit that she got." 

 "And all I'm saying is that I got a person who's making $200,000 and the benefit that you're putting into the briefs, not what you may say that you may find elsewhere, but the benefit in the briefs is I go on a trip for $3,300, $4,400," he added. "And they have made up all these prosecutions to go on a three-day cruise for $3,300. I mean, that's your argument. If that's your argument, that's your argument." 

 For her part, Merchant insisted there was more to her complaints about Willis and Wade.

 "What else is in the brief?" Jones challenged her.

 "A lot of facts, a lot of law," Merchant remarked.

 "No, no, as far as actual financial benefit," Jones followed up.

 "I did not want to have any, as you call it, speculation," Merchant admitted. "I did not want to speculate about anything else."

So the case is no longer one of conflict of interest, but abuse of process and enrichment? And the office went through two grand juries just to get “free” trips out of it by getting Wade to pay for it from money earned under contract with the county? What did Wade get out of this, except lower pay and the chance to spend some of it on vacations? And the fact he took Willis is …what?

And where is the evidence that she even gained by this? Or this?
Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis met with Vice President Kamala Harris before she indicted Donald Trump in his election interference case, according to a lawyer who shared White House records during a Georgia Senate hearing. 
The meeting, according to Attorney Ashley Merchant's testimony, took place on February 28, 2023, just months before Willis indicted Trump in August of that year, Newsweek reported. 
Eighteen other people, including Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, were also indicted on charges of helping Trump in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 
During her testimony before the Georgia Senate, Merchant said that the mayor of Atlanta was also present for the meeting. 
"My understanding is that it's highly regulated who can access the White House ... so you have to apply ahead of time," Merchant said, adding the White House records showing the meeting are open to the public. 
When asked if there was any information available as to the reason the meeting took place, Merchant said no.
Again, no substantive evidence.

Where, exactly, is this supposed to be going?
Posted by at No comments:

“Legal” Twitter Makes Me Tired

Actually, it depends on whether or not there’s ANY evidence of a serious conflict of interest. Fani dating Wade ain’t it. Not nearly.

Whatever I subconsciously think is irrelevant. As is an analysis based on experience with jury trials. This wasn’t a trial. It was a bench hearing. And “judicial realism” only gets you so far.
Posted by at No comments:

RINO’s

Those people are RINO’s. Right?

It’s so much easier when you can simply redefine reality, and the political press goes along with it because “objective journalism.”

Trump has not won an election since 2016 or led his party to victory once, and yet he is a political powerhouse who is extraordinarily popular and controls the GOP and is a man to be reckoned with. 

The leadership of the GOP is now Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley and J.D. Vance and James Comer and Gym Jordan. The House GOP has dwindled to the barest majority possible, disgust with Congress is at an all-time high, Trump is days away from bankrupting the party for his legal woes, even Karl Rove is sounding the alarm on FoxNews (the only outlet that will still talk to him), and yet the consensus among pundits is that Joe Biden is old and the Soviet Union GOP is not on the verge of historic collapse. Because that’s never happened before.

Well, it has (the Democratic Party is far older than the GOP), but not within living memory, so it can’t happen now. Right?

Right?

That “Joe Biden is old” meme? I think that’s as national a concern as the “uncommitted” protest vote of Arab-Americans in MI/MN. Turns out they weren’t even the tail, much less wagging the dog. Political “analysis” is mostly about chasing shiny things in hopes of having something to talk about.

Besides, Trump doesn’t need the votes. Surprising how many people ignore that sentiment, as if it were either perfectly normal, or perfectly innocuous. I think it’s perfectly revealing of how disconnected from reality Trump is. He’s clearly swimming in a sea of his own desperate fantasy.

But then, I’m not a political pundit.
Posted by at No comments:

Behold The Power Of Money!

Not casting aspersions on Haberman, but: Sheldon Adelson? Newt Gingrich? What candidacy did he have? And does anybody remember Adelson as a power broker? Or even a wise political investor?

The Koch Brothers made a concerted effort to influence politics. Some say they succeeded wildly. I think they did a little better than the Hunt Brothers attempt to corner the silver market (look it up! Punk kids!) Musk’s main effort has been to post shit on the money losing social media platform he was forced to buy because he shot his mouth off like a kid on the playground.

He may throw Trump a bone, but then he’ll get bored. And even $20 million would vanish like water spilled in the sand, with Trump. He’ll need that much just in attorney’s fees between now and September.

I take this as a sign Trump’s small dollar donors are drying up. Musk is not going to replace that cash flow, or replace the $50 million Trump has spent on lawyers already.

Or maybe Trump is hoping Elmo will fund an appeal bond or two, so Trump can keep pretending to be rich.🤑 
Posted by at No comments:

And As The Sun Goes Down 🌅

He doesn’t need the votes. Clinton was fighting ISIS? How did I miss that? Ah, the Golden Oldies! Mourning in America!🇺🇸  Uhhhh... 🌄
Posted by at 1 comment:

Tuesday, March 05, 2024

Trump Is Not Going To Have A Good Week

Gee, I wonder why?
Trump has until Thursday to post bond, a total of $91.63 million, so he can appeal. 
MSNBC's Lisa Rubin reports, "Judge Lew Kaplan, faced with Trump’s fully-briefed request for a further stay of the E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million judgment, effectively says, 'I’ll rule when I rule.'" 
Kaplan wrote: "The Court is aware of defendant's request for a decision on the stay motion no later than today 'to allow time for [him] to finalize arrangements for an appropriate bond if necessary.' ... A decision will be rendered as promptly as is reasonably possible. Without implying what that decision will be or when it will be made, however, it will not come today." 
Just over a week ago, Judge Kaplan took "a pretty sharp dig at Trump's attempt to delay the enforcement until right before the wire," noted Just Security's Adam Klasfeld. Kaplan had written: "Twenty-five days after the jury verdict in this case, and only shortly before the expiration of Rule 62's automatic stay of enforcement of the judgment, Mr. Trump has moved for an 'administrative stay' of enforcement pending the filing and disposition of any post-trial motions that he may file. He seeks that relief without posting any security." 
"The Court declines to grant any stay, much less an unsecured stay, without first having afforded plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to be heard."
In short, Trump shot his parents (pissed around until the last minute) and then begged the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.

Maybe Trump needs Elmo to pay Trump’s bar bill.
Posted by at No comments:

Super Schadenfreude

Sometimes gerrymandering is good. Any votes that haven’t come in by now really shouldn’t be counted. Making Greg Abbott look almost "not bad." Well, the Holocaust denial and school shootings mockery. Even Ken Paxton isn’t that foul. Yet. To be fair, I’ve heard the same line of argument made by “respected” pundits for as far back as I can remember. Political races are really fairly dull TeeVee, and they have to work hard to keep your attention.

I know I don’t pay attention any more.
I think exit polls, especially in this day and age, are a particularly useless form of entrail divination, but: schadenfreude, am I right? But somebody on Washington Week told me Trump is popular! And all those rallies! You know, the ones the same people travel the country to attend! Well, she’s going to get a nasty note telling her she’s out of the party. Besides, Trump doesn’t need votes! He seems nice. Speaking of Schadenfreude… Those races will be interesting, because the Court of Criminal Appeals simply followed the plain language of the Texas Constitution. But Ken Paxton didn’t like that. So….

I’m otherwise no further interested in Super Tuesday. Talk among by ourselves. Enjoy your evening/day, as it may be unto you.

Sorry, meant to add this earlier:
😹😹😹
Posted by at No comments:

It’ll Go To The Lawyers

Or maybe to E. Jean Carroll.

Besides, he’s been signaling publicly that he wants Biden defeated.  His fear of a brown planet is palpable. As are his roots in South Africa.

Birds of a feather, and all that.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Procedure Rules

This is not Trump making a “demand.” Granted, Trump has his lawyers do a lot of stupid things. This,  however, just sounds like a Motion for New Trial.
In court filings made on Tuesday, attorneys for Trump "said Kaplan erred when he stopped Trump from testifying about 'his own state of mind' and when he gave an 'erroneous jury instruction on the definition of common-law malice.' Trump’s lawyers said the jury should have been told they needed to find that it was Trump’s 'sole, exclusive desire to harm' Carroll."
That presents grounds for an appeal. Good grounds? I don’t know enough to even speculate. But this is how an appeal is made. And from the trial court, this is how you start an appeal to the Court of Appeals (this case is federal).

Separate and apart is Trump’s request for more time to make bond, which is pending. The trial judge has to consider whether the Appeals Court will agree with his decision, so he’s wise to not act precipitously. I don’t think Trump deserves any special privileges, but I don’t know the record before the court. Details matter.

That bit is odd and unusual. This bit is how appeals run. Trump has to get that motion in within 30 days of the judgement. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s taken this long.

So, we’ll see.
Posted by at No comments:

If You Know, You Know 🤠

That would be like giving up an arm.

Me, I couldn’t do without TexMex. Found that out the hard way. It’s the only addiction I’ll admit too; publicly or privately.

Then again, I spent more than 8 years in Austin, and less than 8 years Not-In-Texas. Context is all.

I’m sure they’re going to be very happy. But you’ll pry my HEB out of my cold, dead fingers.
Posted by at No comments:

🗣️👂

A) This is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

B) it is an attempt to play “coulda/woulda/shoulda” to indicate there are disagreements in the administration, and Harris represents a major group (she’s VP, after all) who care more about Gaza (but not Hamas!) than Israel.

a) “fair and balanced,” IOW

b) Considering the administration is well aware of this story, and Harris probably didn’t want it leaked to expose strong disagreement with POTUS (to what end at this point?), B) is the favored explanation.

C) Some dumbass staffer got way out over her/his skis.

E) Is it likely Harris had staff write a really strong statement on Gaza aid that State demanded be watered down? I think Harris is smarter than that.

F) Then again, who really freaking knows?

G) News is gossip. No one is more aware of that than competent White House staff.
Posted by at No comments:

Everyone On Twitter Needs To Get Out More

Yes, these men are misogynistic. Did you think they’d all dropped dead after “Me, Too” left the headlines (and where did that go?)?

Probably find some skinheads around if you look; maybe even in diners (and where the hell are all these diners? I know a lot of small towns in Texas. Most of the “diners” are upscale sandwich shops and panini boutiques. I’m an old, retired man and I don’t know where we’re supposed to gather. Maybe I fell off the email list. 🤷🏻‍♂️ The diners around me are all upscale places nobody wants to hang out in. When I was a kid, diners and drugstores had counters where you could sit and sip coffee; or a Coke. Ah, dem was de days!).

But we’re surprised every time some camera catches somebody saying something to “own the libs”? These two will probably dine out on this for the next two weeks, whether they actually means it, or not. Consider the possibility they knew what they were doing, and you’re the one they did it to.

Me, I trust the people who grumble and move on, or better say: “GET THAT FUCKIN’ CAMERA OUTTA MY FACE!” You know they’re being honest.
Posted by at No comments:

A Perennial Sentiment

Posted by at No comments:

Make Believe Law

Still want to know if the Kavanaugh ruling on a third-party candidate would ever be applied to a candidate (not even the nominee!) of a major party.

And where in the Constitution candidates for a party’s nomination are sacrosanct? States have ballot access laws. Trump screamed that Nikki Haley missed a filing deadline (she didn’t). If she had, would the Supreme Court have been concerned? If Arnold Schwarzenegger was a viable candidate in the primaries, would the Court flip out if Colorado pointed out he wasn’t a natural born citizen? That would have to be decided by a court, based on evidence. The Supreme Court specifically declined to rule on the insurrection findings of the Colorado court, which means, as a matter of law, they stand. Not for the D,C. case, but for this question.

So why is one provision of Article 2 self-actuating, and the rest of the 14th Amendment is, too, but clause 3 isn’t? I really wanted the Court to address that point.
As well as explain why major party candidates must be allowed full-ballot access, while minor party candidates can be left to the whims of state statutes and judicial interpretations of the Constitution.

Anyway, it is reasonable as a matter of constitutional design, but not reasonable as a matter of application? Have I got that right?
What were they afraid of? Responsibility? (And, yes, they are just making it up. All 9 of them.)
Posted by at 3 comments:

“Waaaah!”

He has “a lot of money” but the judgment is “illegal” and the judge was “crooked” and Letitia James campaigned to get him, and besides they’re appealing the decision.

Which is what the appeal bond is for. The one your lawyers told the court you can’t afford.

Put your money where your mouth is. Because blathering on FixNews is not going to postpone the day of judgement execution.  When Carroll and James start taking your buildings away, get back to us about how much money you have.

This guy is like the old Soviet Union: a fearsome army on paper. In reality? Nuthin’. And like the experts who didn’t see the USSR collapse until we all did, the experts and pundits will insist Trump is rich until his house of cards collapses.

ADDING:

I always yield to superior knowledge:
TBF, I did read a book (I swear the author's name was David Copperfield, but I can't find it anywhere) just before my first trip to the USSR in '86 that analyzed just how much a paper tiger their armed forces/nation was. And then there's George Kennan, who predicted the collapse back on the 60s (admittedly, his timeline and reasoning weren't entirely accurate).

CW, though (I’m not arguing the point, mind), was that the USSR would be our formidable foe for as long as rivers run and governments stand. This from the same geniuses who said we could defeat North Vietnam, mind. It justified the world they had built, and the sunk costs alone meant they couldn’t be wrong. 

But they were so, so wrong.

John LeCarre argued we could have joined Russia with Europe in the interregnum between Gorbachev and Putin. I think the latter proves culture is too imperial a force, as the Bolshevik revolution found out (essentially trading tsars for Stalins, and now Putin. Pretty direct line there).  But we didn’t really try.

Culture, as I say, is imperial.

Yeah, we could have known. We should have known. We didn’t want to.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Twitter Talks To Itself

It’s not a good look. Or a powerful source of insight into the national consciousness.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 04, 2024

It’s Past Time To Quit Hoping The Country Is Hoping The Courts Are Going To Stop Trump

I’m not sure legal and political Twitter (what’s left?) will move on that easily.  😧 

I am sure the rest of the country isn’t all that concerned. 😐 Or was expecting the courts to do their electoral job for them. 🗳️ 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)