Suggestions that there was something suspicious about the way the attempted assassination of Trump went down, including Trump’s striking a heroic fundraising pose with bloody face seconds after shots were fired, the blackout on medical details at the hospital, the miraculous healing of his shot ear, the perfect timing of the shooting for campaign purposes right before the RNC, that it had the smell of yet another Trump-concocted lie, are cited by the New York Times as being conspiracy theories advanced by the left “without proof.” Hmmmm. So both sides do it, Grey Lady? Buried in the article is this:
“There’s just a world of difference between what you’re hearing episodically out of the left and the systemic production of pretty vile and dangerous stuff that we have seen now for years coming out of that right-wing ecosystem,” said Steven Livingston, the founding director of the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University.
According to the Times article they are suggesting, “without proof”, that their paper is taking a bold stand here in calling out occasional misinformation on the left. Consider the final paragraphs of the story:
Articles debunking left-wing misinformation have faced pushback online from critics and journalism watchdogs, who have claimed that the traditional fact-checking process is not suited to tackling falsehoods from the left. The Associated Press was roundly mocked online for trying to debunk the joke by writing a staid fact check that was soon deleted. The news agency said that the fact check had not gone through its “standard editing process.”
“Since most of what Democrats are saying is provably — or at least arguably — true, fact-checkers have descended to hairsplitting at best and worst,” wrote Dan Froomkin, the founder of Press Watch, a nonprofit website covering political journalism.
Snopes, the fact-checking website, is used to seeing pushback over its frequent debunking of right-wing disinformation. But since the war started between Israel and Gaza — and through this year’s presidential election — the website has also faced scrutiny after running fact-check articles about left-wing falsehoods, according to Doreen Marchionni, the executive and managing editor for the site.
“We kind of get hit by all sides whenever what we report doesn’t conform to certain left or right talking points,” she said.
To win a legal argument a lawyer must wield a blunt instrument, the law, with precision. A prosecutor must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt or there is no conviction. There are many ways for wealthy, politically connected defendants to game the system and gain long delays in trial, conviction and sentencing. Ultrawealthy scofflaws enjoy tremendous advantages in court, as in life, and it is frustrating as hell to watch these litigious fucks run roughshod over law and decency.
Once in a blue moon we have a moment of seeming legal clarity. It is a beautiful thing to see an indictment lay out a case against one of these fucks that allows for no reasonable doubt. You can read that kind of indictment here, the very readable superseding indictment Jack Smith’s office recently brought against serial offender Donald J. Chrump.
The indictment uses plain language to lay out in clear, crisp detail, every element of each of the four crimes the Orange Polyp has been indicted for. The superseding indictment steers clear of the MAGA Supreme Court’s unconstitutional made-for-Trump July ruling that presidents may legally commit crimes, if they do this in the course of carrying out their core “official duties”. (Thought experiment challenge — imagine a criminal act that would be necessary for a noncriminal president to commit in order to carry out his official duties).
The revamped indictment removes references to losing candidate Trump’s “official acts”, as when he sought to promote an unqualified loyalist, American Eichmann Jefferey Clarke, to Attorney General to give an official stamp to his Stolen Election lie, or when he told officials just to lie and his allies in Congress would do the rest. It is an easy read that leaves the reader in no doubt as to the guilt of the infallible criminal candidate in knowingly spreading a lie about the rigged and stolen 2020 election, using that lie to whip up duped supporters and raise money, arm twist, wheedle and threaten government officials, inviting election officials of a state he lost to the Oval Office to convince them to change the votes in their states, signing on to a fake elector plan, exhorting an angry crowd he’d lied to for over an hour, at a private event, to “fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore” and taking no action, for hours, outside of stoking the mob’s anger at Mike Pence, as the peaceful mob of reverent tourists he inspired shut down a joint session of Congress.
In Defendant’s defense, during his hour long, lie-studded harangue of the angry mob at the Ellipse, a private event paid for by private funds (as Smith points out), losing candidate Trump used the word “peaceful” several times. So when he told them to go down to the Capitol to fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore, he meant to fight peacefully, you know, as one does when your country is about to be stolen from you.
The law is a blunt instrument and many serious harms are considered trifles by a system of law, designed for all, that routinely favors the rich and powerful. It is a refreshing thing to see a case laid out as beautifully, as indisputably, as Jack Smith’s office did in the reworked election interference indictment of Trump. We can lament the many delays a spoiled, entitled, unaccountable, law suit wielding, blustering, lying, ultra-wealthy bully like Trump always gets, and that Merrick Garland, a stickler for norms and rules, waited so long to appoint a Special Counsel, but, damn, this indictment is good. Check it out.
Now we just have to make sure very fine American Nazis don’t steal the upcoming election for their criminal figurehead so the trial can go forward, with all deliberate speed, in the several cases of US v. Trump (and his indicted co-conspirators).
Because “Holocaust Denier” sounds so unfairly judgmental for this kind of calm reasonable-sounding Hitler-defending “revisionist”:
. . . Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history in which Hitler tried mightily to avoid war with Western Europe, Churchill was a “psychopath” propped up by Zionist interests, and millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” because the overwhelmed Nazis didn’t have the resources to care for them. Elon Musk promoted the conversation as “very interesting” on his platform X, though he later deleted the tweet.
Got to feel bad for those overwhelmed Nazis, right? They didn’t want the war, did their best to avoid it, then they had to fight everyone and wind up vilified by billionaire Zionists for not protecting their Jews better while under attack…
See, not denial at all, simple revisionism [1], an honest disagreement about allegedly disputed historical facts. The ever fair and dazzlingly nuanced NY Times editorial board rests its case.
I truly don’t get the motives of the New York Times, but the Grey Lady certainly cuts a piss-poor figure representing a free press during the frantic gallop of American fascism.
His shot ear has healed miraculously in a very short time, as this recent photo shows. More proof to faithful Evangelicals of how much God loves this flawed vessel.
[1] In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) scholarly views or narratives regarding a historical event, timespan, or phenomenon by introducing contrary evidence or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. Revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record in order to make it more complete and accurate.
One form of historical revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments. Revision in this fashion is a more controversial topic, and can include denial or distortion of the historical record yielding an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negationism (involving, for example, distrust of genuine documents or records or deliberate manipulation of statistical data to draw predetermined conclusions). This type of historical revisionism can present a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record.[2]
Negationists use the term revisionism to portray their efforts as legitimate historical inquiry; this is especially the case when revisionism relates to Holocaust denial.
Demonstrating that someone is an idiot, talking out of their ass, constantly contradicting themselves, making no sense as they toss out their word salads, transparently lying, then insisting they are not the liar, (you are!), that they get angry rather than answering simple questions, and so on, is not hard to do. An idiot speaks for himself. All you really need are a handful of their quotations in context to prove your point. Still, what do you actually gain by proving someone is an idiot?
A charismatic or powerful person who is an idiot gets admiration, and a pass for being dumb, by people who fall under the spell of the admirable idiot’s performed personality. You will not change the mind of anyone who follows, or even worships, an idiot, by offering proof that the object of their fandom is, in fact, an idiot, cretin, imbecile or other person of sub-average intelligence. Having true faith and personal loyalty means that you are impervious to “rational” arguments against the indisputable truth of the thing you fervently hold dear. There is no objective proof that can make a dent in true belief.
So the argument about a malicious idiot who is also loved goes round and round and there is no exit from the cul du sac of that senseless, unresolvable debate. In the end, it is idiotic to expect to prove to someone with a closed mind on a subject that they have been influenced by an idiot and that their belief in the idiot is, uh, not smart.
Belief, like other strong feelings that give meaning to our lives, is not really subject to proof or disproof. The end of an argument over beliefs, with a certain percentage of offended believers, is a punch in the face or other outburst of violent indignation.
When we observe that certain people we encounter are idiots, and we are in forced contact with them, it is best to stay away from topics that might provoke them. Avoid anything but idle chitchat, smiles and good natured jokes and everything is generally more or less OK. It is not hard to be pleasant, even if you sometimes have to be somewhat false.
Of course, moral idiocy is not limited to stupid people. We also see very intelligent people who lack empathy, are stubborn, cruel, manipulative, vindictive etc. Idiots have no monopoly on being assholes, it’s a character flaw that works across the spectrum of human intelligence. Even though it’s hard to do sometimes, it is better, I’ve found, to avoid arguments with anyone, smart or idiotic, who shows you they will never, under any circumstance, actually take in what you have to say and give you a thoughtful response.
I have learned this seemingly simple lesson the hard way, and paid a high price for the understanding I have now, an understanding I remind myself of by writing things like this. I offer it to you for free, for whatever it may be worth to you.
The mind/body connection in health is well-known to anyone who has ever had a painful bodily reaction to stress. Stress can literally cripple a person, as in migraines or disabling back pain. Emotional pain robs us of resiliency and limits our ability to heal.
The concept is pretty basic and easy to observe, but many American doctors fail to take it into consideration, in my experience. After a painful surgery, repeated difficulty obtaining refills on pain medication for failure of the office to return multiple telephone calls may be considered (as it was by my knee surgeon’s office) the difficult patient’s problem, for example.
A vivid illustration of the emotional component of bodily pain for you:
I had a massage recently from an excellent masseuse. Lying on my stomach at the start of the massage I was aware of a painful hemorrhoid that threatened to ruin the massage. For the first ten minutes or so I felt the sting of this literal pain in the ass more than the hands that were massaging me. Then the massage began relaxing me. The pain of the hemorrhoid disappeared as I relaxed. It was gone for hours afterwards too.
So if a doctor discounts your emotional upset about anything related to your medical condition or its treatment, or expresses anger or frustration toward you, you are not in the right hands. Take the advice of someone who has experienced this a few times. Find a more sensitive, emotionally mature doctor.
Also, remember that it’s futile to argue with an angry asshole, it only makes things worse, in the short term (since it inevitably makes them angrier and more determined to prove they are not the asshole, you are) and afterwards. Better to walk away, find a new doctor and relieve yourself of the need to explain anything.
Here’s a comment I posted after reading an interesting post entitled The Media Who Cried Wolf on a blog called Tony’s Bologna. Tony urged readers to listen to the news critically and resist knee jerk reactions to biased news reporting based on the color of your political baseball hat. I felt compelled to add this to the mix:
Good piece, but straight up propaganda packaged as news is not as bipartisan as it might seem. That collage of talking heads Rogan showed are all reading a script provided by Sinclair Media, an ultra-right wing outfit. They send scripted stories to many local stations all over the country. Trusted local news reporters read this crap to their trusting local audiences in markets large and small all over the country.
Both major parties are filled with narcissists and other major league assholes, no question about it. They don’t spread baseless propaganda with equal ferocity and message discipline though.
The rightwing has an entire media ecosystem that infects all corporate news coverage. A network or paper can’t cover a story “objectively” without being accused, by the right, of “anti-conservative bias” so we get this misleading “both sides do it” narrative in every case, even when only one side has fake electors, assaults Capitol police, colludes with foreign intelligence services, refuses to allow the peaceful transfer of power, has belief in the Big Lie (2020 election rigged and stolen) as a loyalty test for party membership, etc.
Plus, corporations by their nature (and by Supreme Court ruling) are concerned only with the bottom line. As “persons” they are greedy, psychopathic parasites who will do anything for a little more profit. And thanks to media consolidation, another anti-regulation right wing project, a corporate group like Sinclair, or an individual like Rupert Murdoch, wield tremendous power to influence public opinion.
Keep up the good work, brother. Your overall point is an important one, though the devil, as always (and as you suggest) is in the details.
You won’t read this in the New York Times, necessarily, but this is the essence of what the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, in regard to former president Donald J. Trump’s case against the United States claiming absolute immunity from prosecution for any criminal act he committed while in office, or afterwards.It is an obscenely anti-democratic ruling by six members of an extremist, doctrinaire judicial fraternity (The Federalist Society) in service to American oligarchs.
The highest court in the land ruled that a president, present or former, may not be prosecuted for crimes he commits in office, if those crimes were done in the course of his official duties. If he was speaking to another government official about committing a crime — official business. All other crimes he commits while in office, not strictly in furtherance of his core official duties (try to picture why any crime would be necessary to carry out any core presidential responsibility — ah, never mind), carry the presumption that he had a good and legally justified reason to commit the crime. This presumption must be rebutted by a prosecutor before charges can be brought.
Just to ensure maximum protection to the man they protected in this one and done, tailor-made for the felon candidate ruling, evidence of any protected criminal act, or conspiracy to commit a newly protected presidential crime, may not be introduced in any other prosecution of a current or former president, in any criminal case where he is not protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Forget logic, the plain text and original meaning of the Constitution Leonard Leo’s appointees pretend great deference toward, common sense, political wisdom, basic fairness, any concern with democracy. This unappealable ruling was made simply to protect the brazen, audacious, ever-cooperative figurehead presidential candidate whose electoral victory is their constituency’s only current chance for holding on to power. The 6-3 Federalist Society supermajority did what loyal, lifelong partisans always do — gave their teammate a uniquely tailored, unappealable assist.
The even more poisonous part of this demented ruling (demented from the point of view of democracy) is the holding that corrupt presidential pardons, even ones he openly sells to felons, his criminal co-conspirators, serial killers with billionaire sponsors, pardons given as the quo of quid pro quo favors done for him or his business, MAY NOT BE CHALLENGED IN A COURT OF LAW. This means a president may hire a hit man to murder a political opponent, or Rosie O’Donnell, and then pardon that hit man as soon as the murder is done — or by preemptive pardon, if needed to seal the deal. As was the clear original intent of the Framers of our experiment in democracy.
MAGA, the rebranded Republican party, the truckling followers of reality-definer Trump (in service to reactionary billionaire polluters and blasphemously false Christian leaders) strenuously opposes an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court, the one branch of government they are majority stakeholders in. These über-entitled motherfuckers always get what they pay for. NO ETHICS FOR OUR PARTISAN IDEOLOGUES! So ordered.
If you want to call these swine Nazis, you are currently within your rights as an American citizen to do so. At least until use of the term “Nazi” is recognized, when applied to those who behave like actual, historical Nazis, as verboten, strictly forbidden, illegal and grounds for immediate imprisonment, reeducation and worse, at the sole discretion of the infallible Führer.
Some days I wake up with a feeling of dread that can be hard to shake. Last night I slept eight hours but woke up feeling like I’d hardly slept. There was a feeling in an unfamiliar part of my stomach, at the base of my bladder, other places where I’d been recently poked, probed and prodded — the reminder of bad medical news and an unscheduled operation I need to set up and have soon. My eyes took a long moment to focus, the cataracts, after years of slowly making themselves known, appear to be spoiling for a fight with an eye surgeon. The feeling of dread became more and more palpable. It persists as I tap these keys. I switch from first to second person in order to pry a little emotional distance from this persistent unease in the proverbial pit of my stomach.
That feeling in the pit of your stomach is telling you the truth. Dread needs to be dealt with. In the case of medical worries, those must be put on the calendar and treated, no matter how badly many of your recent medical experiences may have gone. In the case of making a difficult case, when you have right 100% on your side, which alone gains you nothing, you must calm yourself again and address what remains to be done in the short time left before the short SOL (statute of limitations) leaves you SOL (shit out of luck).
It is not hard to recognize that having detailed concerns about mistreatment by a professional dismissed in three curt sentences by the board that oversees professional discipline, without a hearing, without access to the evidence used to dismiss the complaint, without the right to appeal, would awaken a strong feeling of injustice instilled during a traumatic upbringing. You will not be heard, all concerns dismissed, if you write them down your arguments will be deemed unpersuasive, there is no appeal, asshole. Why would fighting this familiar, mind-fucking battle, in court this time, feel any different as the clock winds down and your right to contest an arbitrary and capricious summary dismissal is about to disappear forever?
Why would an office of professional discipline not take five or six unethical acts complained of into consideration before dismissing a complaint without a hearing and with no right to appeal? You tell me, judge.
Why would a parent, hours before death, tell an adult child that the abuse they subjected them to was, in a real sense, never personal? “I’d have acted the same brutal way toward you no matter what you did, no matter who you were” said my father, in that dying man’s voice he had at the end. The only way you get to hear something like that from an abusive parent is by remaining supremely mild and calm in the face of strong emotion. There is rarely anything to be gained by pointing out the monstrousness of a monster. The dread might remain, but you obtain a certain advantage over it by remaining as calm and deliberate as possible facing its cause.
Anyone who has ever been bullied either comes to hate and oppose bullies or becomes a bully himself. The first reaction takes a certain amount of integrity and a sense of self-worth, the second, only a reflex to appear tough and hurt others before they can hurt you.
Free speech protected in the United States includes verbal bullying, lying, divulging private details about others on-line, making many kinds of threats, claiming imaginary outrages are real (Biden is a pedophile who drinks the blood of his victims, etc.) and all sorts of disgusting speech. The truth does not always prevail over such speech. Here’s today’s bit from Trump v. United States and Common Decency, part 7,582.
This is 42 year-oldHuyen “Steven” Cheung, MAGA loyalist and current Trump spokesman. Here are two quotes to give you the context of his general credibility, from his Wikipedia page:
Cheung was named the spokesman of the Trump 2024 presidential campaign. After Trump was criticized in October 2023 for his statement that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” echoing language of white supremacists and Adolf Hitler, Cheung responded:
That’s a normal phrase that is used in everyday life – in books, television, movies, and in news articles. For anyone to think that is racist or xenophobic is living in an alternate reality consumed with non-sensical outrage.[40]
After Trump was criticized in November 2023 for using language of fascist dictators by referring to his political opponents as “vermin”, Cheung said:
Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.[41]
Mr. Cheung was right that the phrase “poisoning the blood” is common in books, movies, television shows and news articles … about Adolf Hitler. Fuck that fucking puto.
Here’s Heather Cox Richardson, reporting on the recent stink Trump, Cheung and others made at a recent transgressive campaign photo op at Arlington National Cemetery that involved at least one member of Trump’s entourage shoving a female employee of Arlington National Cemetery who politely tried to prevent the forbidden campaign photo op. An Army spokesperson defended the professionalism of the employee, who although abruptly pushed aside avoided further disruption.
Spoiler, Trump spokesman Huyen Cheung graciously claimed that the Arlington National Cemetery employee shoved aside “was clearly suffering from a mental health episode”.
Heather:
A statement from the Arlington National Cemetery reiterated: “Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign. Arlington National Cemetery reinforced and widely shared this law and its prohibitions with all participants. We can confirm there was an incident, and a report was filed.”
Republican vice presidential candidate Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio first said there was a “little disagreement” at the cemetery, but in Erie, Pennsylvania, today he tried to turn the incident into an attack on Harris. “She wants to yell at Donald Trump because he showed up?” Vance said. “She can go to hell.” Harris has not, in fact, commented on the controversy.
VoteVets, a progressive organization that works to elect veterans to office, called the Arlington episode “sickening.”
In an interview with television personality Dr. Phil that aired last night, Trump suggested that Democrats in California each got seven ballots and that he would win in the state if Jesus Christ counted the votes. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post pointed out today, Trump has always said he could not lose elections unless there was fraud; last night he suggested repeatedly that God wants him to win the 2024 election.
Heather, in a follow-up posted early this morning:
And now the U.S. Army has weighed in on the scandal surrounding Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery for a campaign photo op, after which his team shared a campaign video it had filmed. The Army said that the cemetery hosts almost 3,000 public wreath-laying ceremonies a year without incident and that Trump and his staff “were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and [Department of Defense] policies, which clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds.”
It went on to say that a cemetery employee “who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside…. This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the… employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked. [Arlington National Cemetery] is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve.”
“I don’t think I can adequately explain what a massive deal it is for the Army to make a statement like this,” political writer and veteran Allison Gill of Mueller, She Wrote, noted. “The Pentagon avoids statements like this at all costs. But a draft dodging traitor decided to lie about our armed forces staff, so they went to paper.”
And then, this evening, Quil Lawrence and Tom Bowman of NPR explained the story behind the surprising photos of Trump on Monday giving a thumbs-up over a grave in Arlington National Cemetery. The reporters wrote that “[t]wo members of Donald Trump’s campaign staff had a verbal and physical altercation Monday with an official” at the cemetery, where “[f]ederal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities.” When a cemetery official tried to prevent Trump campaign staff from entering the section where the grave was located, “campaign staff verbally abused and pushed the official aside.” A Trump campaign spokesperson said the official who tried to prevent the staff from holding a political event in the cemetery was “clearly suffering from a mental health episode.”
The elephant in the room these days is that most Republicans, along with many pundits, are pretending that Trump is a normal presidential candidate. They are ignoring his mental lapses, calls for authoritarianism, grifting, lack of grasp on any sort of policy, and criminality, even as he has hollowed out the once grand Republican Party and threatens American democracy itself.
It’s hard to look away from the reality that the Republican senators could have stopped this catastrophe at many points in Trump’s term, at the very least by voting to convict Trump at his first impeachment trial. At the time, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said, “Out of one hundred senators, you have zero who believe you that there was no quid pro quo. None. There’s not a single one.” Republican senators nonetheless stood behind Trump. “This is not about this president. It’s not about anything he’s been accused of doing,” then–majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told his colleagues. “It has always been about November 3, 2020. It’s about flipping the Senate.”
When the Framers wrote the Constitution, they did not foresee senators abandoning the principles of the country in order to support a president they thought would enhance their own careers. Assuming that lawmakers would jealously guard their own power, the Framers gave to the members of the House of Representatives the power to impeach a president. To the members of the Senate they gave the sole power to try impeachments. They assumed that lawmakers, who had just fought a war to break free of a monarch, would understand that their own interests would always require stopping the rise of an authoritarian leader.
But the Framers did not foresee the rise of political partisanship.
In the modern era, extreme partisanship has led to voter suppression to keep Republicans in power, the weaponization of the filibuster to stop Democratic legislation, and gerrymandering to enable Republicans to take far more legislative seats than they have earned. The demands of this extreme partisanship also mean that members of one of the nation’s major political parties have lined up behind a man whom, were he running this sort of a campaign even ten years ago, they would have dismissed with derision.
Finally, devastatingly, the partisanship that made senators keep Trump in office enabled him to name to the Supreme Court three justices. Those three justices were key to making up the majority that overturned the nation’s fundamental principle that all people must be equal before the law. In July 2024 they ruled that unlike anyone else, a president is above it.
In May 2016, South Carolina Republican senator Lindsey Graham famously observed: “If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed…….and we will deserve it.”
gratuitousblahg 