“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Wow. Check out what the NY Times published on the eve of the deadline for the DOJ [partially, conditionally, grudgingly] complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, unanimously passed by Congress (but for one diehard MAGA representative) and signed into law, thirty days ago, by Trump himself:
The article (which Trump surely regards as a treasonous, false, witch hunt hit job) begins:
Jeffrey Epstein was a “terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with.” He and Donald J. Trump also had “no formal relationship.” They went to a lot of the same parties. But they “did not socialize together.” They were never really friends, just business acquaintances. Or “there was no relationship” at all. “I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.”
For nearly a quarter-century, Mr. Trump and his representatives have offered shifting, often contradictory accounts of his relationship with Mr. Epstein, one sporadically captured by society photographers and in news clips before they fell out sometime in the mid-2000s. Closely scrutinized since Mr. Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell during Mr. Trump’s first term, their friendship — and questions about what the president knew of Mr. Epstein’s abuses — now threatens to consume his second one.
The controversy has shaken Mr. Trump’s iron hold on his base like no other. Loyal supporters have demanded to know why the administration has not moved more quickly to unearth the convicted sex offender’s remaining secrets. In November, after resisting months of pressure to release more Epstein-related documents held by the federal government — and facing an almost unheard-of revolt among Republican lawmakers — Mr. Trump reversed himself, signing legislation that requires their release beginning this week.
Mr. Epstein had a talent for acquiring powerful friends, some of whom have become ensnared in the continuing scrutiny of his crimes. For months, Mr. Trump has labored furiously to shift himself out of the frame, dismissing questions about his relationship with Mr. Epstein as a “Democrat hoax” and imploring his supporters to ignore the matter entirely. An examination of their history by The New York Times has found no evidence implicating Mr. Trump in Mr. Epstein’s abuse and trafficking of minors.
But the two men’s relationship was both far closer and far more complex than the president now admits.
In response to a detailed list of questions from The Times, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, issued a statement: “This fake news story, which is not worth the paper it’s printed on, is just another stale regurgitation of decades-old false allegations against President Trump. The truth will remain the same no matter how many times The New York Times tries to change it. President Trump did nothing wrong, and he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago for being a creep.”
And one last bite (from the article), with the classic Trump assessment of a guy he now claims to have hardly known:
In the early 2000s, Mr. Epstein — now extraordinarily wealthy and well connected — seemed to grow less content with the anonymity he had carefully drawn around his life and business. In 2002, practically inviting public scrutiny, he arranged to fly with former President Bill Clinton and a celebrity entourage on a humanitarian trip to Africa. Details of the trip were soon shared with The New York Post’s Page Six. Not long after, New York magazine published the first major profile of Mr. Epstein. Mr. Trump provided the headline quote: “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Trump, after shaking down ABC for $16,000,000 with a frivolous lawsuit over an on-air comment that Trump had been found civilly liable for rape (the judge in that case said as much, it is only an idiosyncrasy of New York State law, he explained, that differentiates “sexual assault” — no penis in vagina proved — and “rape”) and CBS for the same amount for doing what every TV station does — editing an interview, has also sued the NY Times and, the other day, the BBC.
The faltering, insanely litigious president ridiculously claimed, through his army of low rent Roy Cohns, that the BBC unfairly and viciously edited segments of his infamous January 6th speech to a crowd that stormed the Capitol moments later to make it falsely look like he had urged them to storm the Capitol.
Here are the highlights of his long harangue to the rioters on January 6th. You be the judge if there is a way to edit this incendiary speech where he is not telling the crowd he’s riled up for over an hour, with detailed lies about a “stolen election” he knew he had lost, to hit the Capitol, he promised he was going down there with them, “and we fight like hell or we won’t have a country anymore.”
You have to love the generally spineless NY Times’ last line in its report on this Hitlerian move on the part of Putin’s pliable puppet, Donald J. Trump, now suing the British Broadcasting Corporation, an outfit almost as despicable in his squinty eyes as our own Public Broadcasting Service. Here’s the Times, at its best:
The president also has a defamation lawsuit pending against The New York Times, which accuses the news organization of trying to undercut his 2024 candidacy and disparage his reputation. The Times says the lawsuit has no merit.
“Conspicuously absent [in the dissent] is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. . .”
Chief Justice John “Arbitration Clause” Roberts, writing for the 6-3 Federalist Society majority in Donald J. Trump v The United States (2024).
I finally read this stinking pile of rabidly activist partisan juridical offal, a July 4th pre-election present to the plaintiff, Mr. DJT, so that you don’t have to. Note the Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation/judicial activist approach taken by Chief Justice John “Balls and Strikes Umpire” Roberts and his ilk.
Take the result you want (no prosecution of Project 2025’s declared presidential candidate) and work backwards from there by narrowly following the desired path. Minimize the many damning specifics of this case, mere allegations, many of them baseless or constitutionally irrelevant, keep the ruling as abstract, narrowly legalistic and generic as possible (in other cases, do the exact opposite, obviously, whatever the desired result dictates). In Trump v. US, obviously, start by framing the constitutional question of a candidate indicted on dozens of federal felony charges not even arguably part of his “core official duties” as narrowly as possible, some MAY have been part of his official duties, like so:
We granted certiorari to consider the following question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
On August 1, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted him on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. According to the indictment, Trump advanced his goal through five primary means. First, he and his co-conspirators “used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to . . . change electoral votes for [Trump’s] opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for [Trump].” Second, Trump and his co-conspirators “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states” and “caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.” Third, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to use the Justice Department “to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.” Fourth, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to persuade “the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” . And when that failed, on the morning of January 6, they “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Ibid. Fifth, when “a large and angry crowd . . . violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” Trump and his co-conspirators “exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.” .Based on this alleged conduct, the indictment charged Trump with (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(k), (3) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2), §2, and (4) conspiracy against rights in violation of §241.[1]
Trump insisted nobody can do shit to him because of Article II. The district court disagreed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Here’s what John Roberts quoted from their decision:
The D. C. Circuit distinguished between two kinds of official acts: discretionary and ministerial (citation). It observed that “although discretionary acts are ‘only politically examinable,’ the judiciary has the power to hear cases” involving ministerial acts that an officer is directed to perform by the legislature. (citation). From this distinction, the D. C. Circuit concluded that the “separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws.” (citation). In the court’s view, the fact that Trump’s actions “allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws” meant that those actions “were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion.” (citation), The D. C. Circuit thus concluded that Trump had “no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment.” Like the District Court, the D. C. Circuit declined to analyze the actions described in the indictment to determine whether they involved official acts.
We granted certiorari to consider the following question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
John Roberts includes this weighty consideration, properly enough, in deciding how much unaccountability a certain former president would enjoy (he does so in passing, of course):
We must, however, “recognize[ ] the countervailing interests at stake.”. Federal criminal laws seek to redress “a wrong to the public” as a whole, not just “a wrong to the individual.”. There is therefore a compelling “public interest in fair and effective law enforcement.” The President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them (citation). . .
And this is why Roberts is a fucking Nazi:
. . .Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. Indeed, if presumptive protection for the President is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the President himself for his official actions. At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” . . .
. . . As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. . .
. . .The indictment broadly alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators sought to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.”. It charges that they conspired to obstruct the January 6 congressional proceeding at which electoral votes are counted and certified, and the winner of the election is certified as President-elect. As part of this conspiracy, Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly attempted to leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors. According to the indictment, Trump met with the Acting Attorney General and other senior Justice Department and White House officials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the Department to those States regarding such fraud. The indictment further alleges that after the Acting Attorney General resisted Trump’s requests, Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him. . . .
. . .The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. . .
. . .The indictment’s remaining allegations cover a broad range of conduct. Unlike the allegations describing Trump’s communications with the Justice Department and the Vice President, these remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. Many of the remaining allegations, for instance, cover at great length events arising out of communications that Trump and his co-conspirators initiated with state legislators and election officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding those States’ certification of electors. .Specifically, the indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince those officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their States, and thus electoral votes for Trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for Trump. After Trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his co-conspirators allegedly developed a plan “to marshal individuals who would have served as [Trump’s] electors, had he won the popular vote” in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, “and cause those individuals to make and send to the Vice President and Congress false certifications that they were legitimate electors.”. If the plan worked, “the submission of these fraudulent slates” would position the Vice President to “open and count the fraudulent votes” at the certification proceeding and set up “a fake controversy that would derail the proper certification of Biden as president-elect.” According to the indictment, Trump used his campaign staff to effectuate the plan. On the same day that the legitimate electors met in their respective jurisdictions to cast their votes, the indictment alleges that Trump’s “fraudulent electors convened sham proceedings in the seven targeted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots” in his favor. Those ballots “were mailed to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and others.”.
At oral argument, Trump appeared to concede that at least some of these acts—those involving “private actors” who “helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding” at the direction of Trump and a co-conspirator—entail “private” conduct.
But then, during anal argument, the president had a shit fit. He agreed that he could send SEAL Team Six to kill the Biden Crime Family. All of his conduct was official, throughout his presidency, his reluctant post-presidency, during his first, second and third presidential campaigns and all the years leading up to, and including, the Apprentice, as well as his childhood and the years of his sexual maturity — all immune from any criticism, allegation or anything hurtful to his sense of self.
. . . On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. Of course, the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” plainly encompasses enforcement of federal election laws passed by Congress. Art. II, §3. And the President’s broad power to speak on matters of public concern does not exclude his public communications regarding the fairness and integrity of federal elections simply because he is running for re-election. Similarly, the President may speak on and discuss such matters with state officials—even when no specific federal responsibility requires his communication—to encourage them to act in a manner that promotes the President’s view of the public good.
“encourage them to act in a manner that promotes the President’s view of the public good.” Fuck you, John, seriously.
. . . Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. . .
Such as the public interest in violently storming the Capitol to prevent certification of an election result the electorally defeated president does not like.
. . .The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. . .
Trump claimed he couldn’t be prosecuted for the same things he was impeached and unsuccessfully removed for. Roberts, bravely calling balls and strikes (after getting ready to rule basically exactly this):
. . .The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. . .
Finally Roberts dismisses the doomsaying dissenters who seem not to want an openly corrupt president with a long criminal history to be immune for all criminal acts he can justify as falling within the outer limits of his core powers.
. . . As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity. . .
. . . Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support [1], the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. . .
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented:
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power.
In the weeks leading up to January 6, 2021, then-President Trump allegedly “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” despite being “notified repeatedly” by his closest advisers “that his claims were untrue,”.
When dozens of courts swiftly rejected these claims, Trump allegedly “pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors” in his favor. It is alleged that he went so far as to threaten one state election official with criminal prosecution if the official did not “ ‘find’ 11,780 votes” Trump needed to change the election result in that state. When state officials repeatedly declined to act outside their legal authority and alter their state election processes, Trump and his co-conspirators purportedly developed a plan to disrupt and displace the legitimate election certification process by organizing fraudulent slates of electors.
As the date of the certification proceeding neared, Trump allegedly also sought to “use the power and authority of the Justice Department” to bolster his knowingly false claims of election fraud by initiating “sham election crime investigations” and sending official letters “falsely claim[ing] that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome” while “falsely present[ing] the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors.” When the Department refused to do as he asked, Trump turned to the Vice President. Initially, he sought to persuade the Vice President “to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.”. When persuasion failed, he purportedly “attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in Washington, D. C., to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election results.”
Speaking to that crowd on January 6, Trump “falsely claimed that, based on fraud, the Vice President could alter the outcome of the election results.” When this crowd then “violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” Trump allegedly delayed in taking any step to rein in the chaos he had unleashed. Instead, in a last desperate ploy to hold onto power, he allegedly “attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol” by pressuring lawmakers to delay the certification of the election and ultimately declare him the winner. That is the backdrop against which this case comes to the Court.
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.
Or as John Roberts, and his five reactionary colleagues on the nation’s highest court, would say “I know you are, but what am I?” And it’s not like Trump has done anything illegal, corrupt, unconstitutional or stinking to high heaven since becoming the 47th president…
“The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power.”
[1] As corporate pantload Roberts himself notes, this is the first time the question of immunity for a criminal former president has ever come before the Supreme Court, so where is the precedent he chides the dissent for failing to cite supposed to come from? Once again, John, fuck you and the Nazi horse you rode in on.
As a comedian, less so than as the president of the United States. He is a killer though, his psychopath father made sure of that. He has exhibited a taste for killing people, whenever he has the power to do so. He didn’t blink when told that the shuttering of USAID would kill 2,000 poor people a day, most of them little brown children, he probably made one of his famous wisecracks.
As his first term was ending Trump was enraged and anxious to execute federal death row prisoners after his loss in the “rigged election“. That his hyper religious Christian AG Bill Barr went into overdrive to support Trump’s killing rampage tells you all you need to know about far right Christianity. It was important for these angry, punitive men to kill these federal prisoners before Trump lost the unchallengeable power to do so. They rushed to kill several men of color and a woman, Lisa Montgomery [1], so crazy it’s hard to understand why she wasn’t locked in a mental institution for life.
Of course, once he was unfairly snubbed and deprived of the recent Nobel Peace Prize he so richly deserved, he began to refocus on an emergency war on drugs against the “narco-terrorist” government of Venezuela (as well as stepping up violent ICE attacks on his own civilian population). In addition to the documented torture of illegally detained non-criminals at his private detention centers, now holding close to 70,000 people in cruel conditions, he has killed at least 87 South Americans in strikes on small boats after accusing the crews of acts of war against the USA.
The rage to prevail has always animated our current president, the “Winner”, and killing is the ultimate assertion of an extreme notion of power, I suppose. Trump argues that he is free to kill anyone he designates a deadly enemy under IEEPA – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Oh, wait, that’s his fig leaf for his illegally imposed tariffs. He is allowed to murder suspected drug dealers anywhere, he claims, because of another emergency war power someone told him about, possibly the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, plus he has “an Article II” and, most convincingly of all, the people he is killing — “narco-terrorists” — are totally evil.
Oddly enough, former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte is in detention at the International Criminal Court at the Hague for the identical crime, executing suspected drug dealers without arresting, charging and trying them first. Although Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the International Criminal Court in 2019, much of the wholesale murder he committed took place before that date and so he’s still under the court’s jurisdiction and locked up.
Last month, judges decided to keep Duterte in custody, finding that he was likely to refuse to return for trial and could use his freedom to intimidate witnesses.
According to court filings, Duterte instructed and authorized “violent acts including murder to be committed against alleged criminals, including alleged drug dealers and users.” The charges against him date from Nov. 1, 2011, when he was still mayor of the southern city of Davao, to March 16, 2019, when the country withdrew from the court. He was president from 2016-22.
Estimates of the death toll during Duterte’s presidential term vary. National police put the figure at more than 6,000, while human rights groups claim up to 30,000. Families of victims hailed Duterte’s arrest in March.
Of course, Donald Trump’s body count somehow doesn’t include the more than 600,000 who have died so far as a result of Trump’s largest campaign donor, failed humanoid Elon Musk, being tasked with shutting down USAID, with Donald’s, and Charles Koch’s and the Heritage Foundation’s, blessing. That alarming number of innocent dead, the poorest people in the world and their children, is expected to reach a million very soon, and more than 14 million over the next few years.
What are you going to do? Not everybody in the world is a winner… “and if you’re a winner, you get to kill whoever you want, they let you do it. Ask the 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, they’ll tell you, just like they did when they declared me the winner of Trump v. United States.”
[1]
The Department of Justice has scheduled three federal executions during the administration’s lame-duck period: Orlando Hall on November 19, Lisa Montgomery on December 8, and Brandon Bernard on December 10. The last time the U.S. government carried out an execution between a presidential election and the inauguration of the new president for a federal crime was nearly 132 years ago, on January 25, 1889, when the outgoing administration of Grover Cleveland executed Richard Smith, a Choctaw Indian, for a murder on tribal land in Arkansas. source
Montgomery was the 11th prisoner to be killed by lethal injection since Donald Trump resumed federal executions last July after a 17-year hiatus. The president is an ardent supporter of capital punishment.source
They are constantly building their army of loyalists, propaganda network and attack machine. Before you even know you’re in any kind of conflict with them, they’ve drawn up all their battle plans, their artillery is positioned, drones are already in the air. This is because they are programmed, from earliest consciousness, to regard the world as a hostile, pitiless place where each is born into a zero-sum war. This war must be won at all costs.
Narcissists demand an unquestioning embrace of their unreality, since belief in this false world they are the center of is necessary to the narcissist’s existence. Everyone around them must accept the grandiose power-broker’s paranoid version of reality. The cost of disobedience is erasure.
They can be very charming, seductive and persuasive, when they want something from you. As long as you give it to them, they will praise and idealize you. If you fail to gratify their passions, even once, they’re done with you and everyone else in the in-group will be quickly persuaded that you are irredeemably evil, a treacherous traitor. Anyone who questions this new assessment of you will be cast out with you. The narcissist leaves the final choice up to the people in his orbit — favor or eternal banishment.
For American Nazism to take root in the United States, the hateful message Nazis must spread needs to come from everywhere, particularly from trusted, mainstream news sources. The New York Times has long been regarded as a trustworthy source of even handed news and opinion. Even as Trump rails against the Grey Lady and her fake news, she always curtsies respectfully, except when writing hard-hitting exposes, like the long one about his psychopathic father’s decades-long illegal tax avoidance scheme. This was the plan that paid Donald $200,000 a year, tax-free, from the time he was two years-old (and the president of a fictious tax avoidance corporation). What we read in the Times carries a certain amount of weight. It is alarming how often we find the call for fascism coming from inside the house, in a variety of insidious ways.
I really don’t understand what the journal of record gains from printing their brand of political reporting/editorializing. The following is from their chief political analyst (accent on the anal), Nate Cohn. The Times published this on October 9, 2025, during Trump’s government shutdown, before Schumer orchestrated the shameful Democratic capitulation that ended it. Cohn’s political orientation, or larger vision for the future of American democracy, is anybody’s guess (though it’s not a hard one). Like I say, these fuckers are handmaidens of fascism, which can’t succeed without unified support from super-influential mainstream straight shooters like Nate Cohn of the New York Times. FOX news or the NY Times? You be the judge (and jury).
. . .Health care hasn’t been front and center for years. In the final New York Times/Siena poll of the 2024 campaign, less than 1 percent of voters said health care was the most important issue to their vote. To the extent there’s a political battle over health care today, it’s mostly because Democrats forced a government shutdown over it.
That’s not to say there haven’t been major developments in health policy. The Republicans’ spending bill this summer derived most of its savings through health care cuts. And an expiration of Obamacare subsidies will affect millions of people. . .
. . . Not even this government shutdown is really about health care. The Democratic Party’s activist base demanded a shutdown because it wanted Democrats to do something to oppose Mr. Trump, not because of particular concerns about expiring health care subsidies. Only 1 percent of Democrats said health care was the most important issue facing the country in last week’s Times/Siena poll. This shutdown is “about” health care only because congressional Democrats redirected the energies of the party’s base onto an issue they deemed electorally fruitful.
According to the top political analyst for the NY Times, there’s a battle over health insurance not because health and death prevention are important to us all, not because the MAGA-headed GOP slashed $1,500,000,000,000 from health insurance programs and tax subsidies for healthcare to give that money to our greatest billionaires. Not at all, it’s because “activist” Democrats forced a government shutdown over it…
The paltry 1% concerned about health care were probably distracted by issues like a criminally insane president deploying an American gestapo in US cities and the Supreme Court’s shredding of our Constitution. Ask directly about opposition to slashing health insurance and subsidies, closing rural hospitals, mandating tens of thousands of annual preventable deaths for lack of health insurance, and I think that 1% number goes up well over 70%, probably 100% of people of average intelligence.
This year’s Medicaid cuts were mostly obtained through the politically palatable means of adding work requirements; Democrats have not focused on trying to roll back those cuts during this shutdown fight. . .
[The “politically palatable means”, you fucking fuck?]
. . . For a long time, Democrats succeeded politically by promising to protect postwar prosperity against conservatives who would roll back Medicare and Social Security, or against unfair trade deals that shipped jobs overseas. With Mr. Trump promising to protect entitlements and campaigning against free trade, this winning Democratic playbook is gone.
A compulsively lying, obsessively vengeful, criminally insane kleptocrat, with advancing dementia, promising to protect what Democrats value — I guess that’s check and mate, Nate.
I hope I wind up in the same cattle car as this deluded fuck, give Nat a piece of what’s left of my mind on the way to Camp Trump…
I wonder how high that percentage goes among human billionaires. The current examples we know suggest a high correlation of the major traits of psychopaths with the best of the best and most deserving of the deserving — ruthless focus on self-interest, manipulativeness, exploitativeness, zero empathy, no capacity for remorse.
It is beyond question that the alter egos of billionaires, the immortal American/global “persons” known as corporations, are almost 100% psychopathic. Here’s the list of their traits from the excellent documentary The Corporation.(watch it for free on YouTube, highly recommended)
Picture any member of Trump’s billionaire cabinet, or the fabulous CEOs who line up to kiss their asses — Jeff “rent Venice for my next wedding” Bezos, Elon “virtually human, kill millions of brown children” Musk, Mark “go to the mat — and fuck democracy– for my right to be richest man in the world” Zuckerberg, etc. Now, imagine them embodied in an entity of eternal life, the vampire that is the modern corporation. This “person” owes allegiance to nothing but pathological greed and the compulsion to maximize and hoard profit.
Starting in 1971, when a group of worried very wealthy psychopaths hired tobacco lobbyist Lewis Powell (soon thereafter placed on the Supreme Court by Nixon) to draft a game plan for ensuring their eternal dominion over puny human persons, we can draw a straight line to Project 2025, featuring corporatist John Roberts and his morally deformed reactionary five on the Supreme Court. Here’s the most condensed version I’ve seen of that story:
You don’t have to be a psychopath, of course, to raise prices by 100% two years in a row. You only need to be shamelessly greedy and able to do it. If you are a corporation, any amount of money you need to spend to make laws that allow you to double your prices every year is money well-spent. A cost of doing business! And psychopath is such a judgmental word!! How about just “successful” and stop with the judgement. Like the NY Times does:
An illegally appointed US attorney illegally “continuing as US Attorney” becomes not a matter of law — her appointment was ruled constitutionally invalid by a federal judge — but the object of criticism from judges who are “critical” of an illegally appointed DOJ official being kept in office after the federal court ruled the appointment illegal.
You see what the New York Times is doing here? Innocently sanitizing a fascistic disregard for American law and a good old fashioned ass-wipe with the Constitution. Why not? All the points of view that are fit to print.
Bravo, Grey Lady, another bullseye.
Robert Caro, whose lifelong interest as a writer and researcher is understanding power, how it is acquired and how it’s used, wrote that to see what someone will do with power, study what they did as they climbed to power. These Project 2025 fascists were once the “lunatic fringe” John Birch Society, rabid anti-Communist segregationists who made no attempt to hide the foam on their lips. Today, after a long, relentless, fantastically expensive climb to power, they control all three branches of our government. The “Trump White House” released a document, the 2025 National Security Strategy, traditionally used to announce US foreign policy, that says a forthright fuck you to the rest of the world and shits on anything but the business interests of America’s wealthiest. Read all about it, from Heather Cox Richardson.
Medicare, the health care partnership between private insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the government to protect the health of people over 65 (or with certain disabilities) is promoted as the solution to health care coverage for Americans of all ages. At 69, and dealing with Medicare now for a few years, I find this idea appalling, especially since the only solution to protecting the health of the old and the sick is a single payer system that cuts out all the parasitic middle men who profit off disease and our legitimate fear of death.
Citizens of a democracy deserve decent health care as a right of citizenship, like in every other wealthy economy (and formerly Iraq, Libya and other third world “shitholes”). But, lest I forget, America is exceptional.
Every year, between October 15 and December 7 (a day that always lives in infamy now, thanks to Medicare) purchasers of Medicare insurance are urged to shop on the marketplace and find the best suited plans for themselves. You can compare prices and, in some cases, actual coverage. It is no fun navigating the website, shopping for the best “deal” that should be provided to you automatically as a lifelong tax payer. Each of us should get the best deal available from our government, the one we fund, the one that is supposed to watch out for our best interests.
The economic reality is that, in a consumer society, if you need a few pills, you will pay 50 cents each. If you buy a billion pills, the price is 3 cents each. This is simple capitalism, economy of scale. The more you buy, the less each one will cost you [1]. Medicare buys a trillion pills a year, but is prevented, by a right wing/corporate law signed by Dubya, from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies based on that economy of scale leverage.
And so old people are forced to enter this kind of virtual mall, after October 15th of each year, where you can search for the best deals before the annual December 7th final deadline comes crashing down and you can choose nothing until the following October 15th rolls around because, fair is fair and rules are rules.
Part D of the alphabet soup that is Medicare is the prescription drug plan and every Medicare recipient must choose a Part D plan (or get it included in the problematic, loophole-ridden, insurance company sponsored Medicare plans known as Medicare Advantage). Prices for Part D vary wildly. In 2024 I chose the cheapest drug plan available, Aetna Silverscript, for $31 a month. Then:
You see profit margins here that would make Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk insanely jealous. Over 100% price increase in 2025 and then, a tic below another 100% price increase the following year. All perfectly legal here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, as long as you get a letter from that corporation informing you that your premiums will double and you will get only slightly less coverage.
A billionaire named Mark Cuban set up a company called CostPlus that will mail you prescription drugs, at 15% above cost plus handling and mailing. You can calculate the approximate cost on their website. The four generic prescription drugs I take will cost under $100 every three months, less than $400 for the year. No deductible, no insurance, just the prescriptions. I signed up online. There is a form for my doctor to submit to them, and the drugs will be shipped to me every ninety days.
I called Aetna to cancel my Part D with them, after visiting the marketplace and seeing annual prices, under our American “freedom of choice”, from $1,000 to $3,000 for the identical drugs (cost of drug copays plus premiums). My once modest $31/month plan was now up there with some of the most expensive. The woman I spoke to at Aetna was lovely, but she was not a trained disenrollment specialist, she explained, and so couldn’t take my cancellation order. She gave me another number to call to speak to a “Medicare disenrollment specialist”, and after checking, at my request, confirmed it is a 24/7 number.
In the wee hours of the morning I decided to make the last aggravating December 7th related call of the year and get that particular pile of steaming scats off my plate. When I called the 800 number it came up like so:
Who the fuck is Valley Organized Physicians? Fuck if I know, but they answer the phone “Medicare”. The person I spoke to patched me through to a disenrollment specialist named Kevin. Kevin and I wound up talking for almost an hour. He somehow had instant access to every prescription drug I’d bought in the last three years. His job, apparently, was to sell me a Part D plan, as I learned when he read me the complete list, suggesting that some, if not many, would be hard to get without insurance.
Kevin warned me that unless I enrolled in a Part D program with creditable coverage that met the minimum standards of Medicare, I’d be subject to a potentially large lifetime monthly fine that would add several dollars, or even a hundred or more, to my monthly premium in perpetuity should I need Part D coverage in the future.
I told Kevin I had no idea what “creditable” meant in that context and he explained. If the prescription drug program you enroll in is not recognized by Medicare, it’s not creditable and you will pay a monthly fine for the rest of your life if you cancel a creditable plan at any time during your years on Medicare. Way to watch out for the old and vulnerable, you fucking corporate psychopaths, I thought. But since Kevin was being so nice, we continued to amiably bat the ball back and forth.
Kevin laid out the worst case scenario to make me understand the risk I was taking by going with a non-creditable plan. Say in five years you decide you need Part D, for some expensive medication, let’s say (which, admittedly, Part D might not cover, but exceptions can sometimes be made for medical necessity). Well, currently the penalty is 39 cents a month times twelve (since you can only fix this once a year). That penalty number keeps going up. So in five years time, Kevin told me, I could be looking at a penalty of maybe $50 a month, maybe $100.
I pointed out that if I realized it was a mistake to opt for CostPlus and bought a Part D plan at the next available date (October 15, 2026) I’d pay $4 a month penalty for the rest of my life. Meantime, Aetna had increased their premium price for their basic plan 100% one year and 100% the following year. I asked him how it was possible that an insurance company can double its rate year after year with no regulation by Medicare.
Kevin had an answer worthy of a Republican congressman speaking to a FOX audience, there are many factors, market forces, which are impossible to regulate, or predict, or even consider, he told me. In other words it’s hard to say and above our pay grades to understand or do anything about. I told him it was not hard to say that costs for Aetna had not increased 200% in two years.
I expressed dismay that Medicare imposed no regulations on what private insurance companies could charge. He agreed that it was not unreasonable for me to be dismayed, but that there was a reason, somehow, beyond our feeble human understanding, apparently, that corporations can’t be regulated but consumers must be charged lifetime penalties for not buying creditable plans from approved insurance companies providing benefits consistent with the minimum standards of Medicare Part D.
Kevin told me to look for a zero cost Part D plan, then checked and said there were none available in my area. He tried to sell me a $35 a month plan, from Healthspring Assurance, which, with the drugs, would cost me only about $720 a year. He agreed there was no guarantee that Healthspring wouldn’t double its premium next year, but that’s why there is a period to compare prices once a year and the requirement of a letter informing the customer that the price was about to double.
He was trying to help me out, he said, after explaining he could have disenrolled me as soon as I called, but he was warning me of the potentially dire consequences of uncreditable disenrollment. I said that in dollars and cents, the difference between $300-400 a year for generic prescriptions, and even the bargain price of $720, would seem to more than offset the penalty for a year or two.
Eventually, after a long chat, he told me he would disenroll me. There was no confirmation number, no proof we’d ever had a conversation of almost an hour (except on my phone, but again, who the hell is Valley Organized Physicians?), I’d get a letter from Aetna confirming I’d been disenrolled, he told me. We bid each other a polite goodnight.
We got off the phone, it was now 4 a.m., and my head immediately fucking exploded. Every narcissist I’ve ever known has told me I’m too sensitive. Maybe the despicable freaks are right about that. I was unable to tune down my outrage enough to get to sleep, the pill I took at 5:00 allowed me to finally drift off around 6:30 a.m. for a few hours of sleep. I’m too sensitive, goddamn it, and it’s messing with my health.
Dig the Nazi haircut on the first lying motherfucker.
And notice what power Stephen Colbert displays in dissecting Trump’s incoherence. It explains why his firing was key to Shari Redstone getting her 8 billion dollar deal signed off on by the Trump administration’s loyal FCC.
gratuitousblahg 