Category Archives: January 6 MAGA riot

Editors do not have the right to edit, only Trump does

Trump Files $10 Billion Suit Against BBC Over Documentary

The New York Times reports on another sickening MAGA attempt to intimidate media that reports unflatteringly on the historic ugliness of their dictatorial leader.

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.

Speaking of Trump v. United States

“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.”

(note: for ease of reading I omit all citations. Decision, citations, concurrences and dissents can all be found here.)

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.

The Madness of President Project 2025

Mr. Trump’s agitated, increasingly irrational dementia doesn’t get 1% of the media attention former president Joe Biden’s occasional gaffes, stumbles, age-related hesitations still get.

It’s as if by his longtime assertion of brash incoherence Trump has inoculated himself, perhaps with one of Dr. Brainworm’s non-harmful, anti-scientific health injections, against anyone questioning even the most insane things he says or does. It’s just Trump being himself. Take two Tylenol and call me in the morning, when you have autism.

Heather Cox Richardson, American historian writing for future historians, records some of the latest insane Trump actions, posts and pronouncements, in her most recent Letter from an American. If you don’t subscribe to her free nightly email, you really should, her perspective is super well-informed and often illustrated with fascinating historical parallels. She is also a brilliant writer. Here’s the last paragraph of last night’s impressive inventory of floridly insane actions by the Commander-in-Chief:

Late this afternoon, Trump praised his remodeling of the Oval Office to include copious gold fixtures, some of which match polyurethane appliqué available from the home improvement store Home Depot. On social media, Trump posted: “Some of the highest quality 24 Karat Gold used in the Oval Office and Cabinet Room of the White House. Foreign Leaders, and everyone else, ‘freak out’ when they see the quality and beauty. Best Oval Office ever, in terms of success and look!!! President DJT”

source

Innocuous enough, out of context, perhaps, a vain compulsive old liar bragging about his impeccable 24 karat taste. But read along with everything else this increasingly mad, impulsive, vindictive man has done the last few days, weeks, months and years and the many objectively false things he repeatedly, angrily insists are true, it sends a chill up the old spine.

The good news, such as it is, is that in order to remain the smartest man in the room (always very important to Trump, as he has said, in moments of candor) he’s had to surround himself with fools and spinelessly ambitious people willing to meekly perform being even stupider than old Stupid Is As Stupid Does. To me, that collection of loyal incompetents is one of our greatest advantages in this perilous moment.

The cream of the wealthiest 1% who are dying for a permanent one party government run by a corrupt, pliable authoritarian, to protect their vast, inheritable privileges in perpetuity and screw everybody else, have a very problematic front man for their Project 2025 in America’s President Project 2025.

Stark Raving Mad

Heather Cox Richardson, not AI, describes the speech President Project 2025 delivered at the UN last week:

Trump’s speech went on to depict a fantasy world in which he had single-handedly saved the world. He claimed to have forged peace on two continents during his first term but said that “era of calm and stability gave way to one of the great crises of our time.” He then turned to the United States, claiming that “four years of weakness, lawlessness, and radicalism under the last administration delivered our nation into a repeated set of disasters. One year ago,” he said, “our country was in deep trouble, but today, just eight months into my administration, we are the hottest country anywhere in the world and there is no other country even close. America is blessed with the strongest economy, the strongest borders, the strongest military, the strongest friendships, and the strongest spirit of any nation on the face of the earth.”

And that was the frame for the next hour of rambling boasts and insults.

Trump claimed that he had reversed the “economic calamity” left by former president Joe Biden. He had brought down costs and inflation, he said, and economic growth and manufacturing were both booming. He claimed that in his four years, Biden had attracted less than $1 trillion in investment while he had secured $17 trillion. Tax cuts and deregulation had, he said, made the U.S. “the best country on earth to do business.”

“In my first term, I built the greatest economy in the history of the world,” he said. “We had the best economy ever, history of the world, and I’m doing the same thing again, but this time it’s actually much bigger and even better. The numbers far surpass my record-setting first term.”

Trump claimed: “On the world stage, America is respected again like it has never been respected before. You think about two years ago, three years ago, four years ago, or one year ago, we were a laughingstock all over the world.

source

Great interview with an FCC commissioner

This piece by Chris Hayes lays out the mafia style shakedown by Trump appointed Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr [1]. Carr issued a direct threat to the parties who need FCC permission to make an $8,000,000,000 deal. He delivered his threat on a far-right podcast. Hayes talks with a sitting FCC commissioner (one of only three, the law requires five, but what does Project 2025 care? Brendan Carr wrote, and denies he wrote, the FCC chapter in Project 2025) who confirms that Carr’s actions are the audacious, unethical, dangerous, illegal actions of a lawless, partisan, rogue chairman.

Even Lyin’ Ted, who applauded the firing of Jimmy Kimmel (no friend of the Senate’s most hated member), deplored this mafia style demand on Disney, Nexstar and other mega-entities whose love of monetary profit erases all other considerations. Check out Lyin’ Ted’s cool imitation of a mafioso, wicked cool.

These are desperate acts by desperate men making a desperate run to overcome the will of the vast majority of Americans of all political persuasions, before their time for seizing authoritarian control runs out. They may be acting exactly like Nazis, but we call them Nazis at our peril, because Nazis always kill as many of their enemies as possible, even after they lose the war. This is not a time to hesitate out of fear, it is a time to remain clear-eyed and resolute in resistance.

Trump being Trump

Colin Ferguson, the now mostly forgotten LIRR mass murdering “gunman,” insisted on defending himself at his murder trial. The judge was unable to convince him of the folly of doing so. Ferguson, who didn’t show any skill representing himself (and later lost an appeal on “ineffective assistance of counsel”), asked the witnesses “do you see the man who opened fire that day?” and the witnesses each said, “yeah, it was you.” The jury, not being as credulous or transactional as our corporate mass media, or as blinded as the followers of a charismatic cult leader, convicted Ferguson who is not eligible for parole until 2309.

I thought of Ferguson as I read Trump’s immediate, idiotic, violence inspiring lies following the hideous murder of extreme right wing activist and organizer Charlie Kirk:

In the Oval Office, President Donald J. Trump blamed the shooting on “the radical left” and vowed to “find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.” source

As a man who has never angrily gone after every judge who ever ruled against him, or their family, or ever called one stupid or corrupt, or threatened a prosecutor, never fomented a violent attack on police protecting Congress, never used tear gas and mounted federal law enforcement agents to disperse a legal, peaceful protest for a strongman photo op, or done anything else bad, ever, I guess the poor demented fellow gets to say whatever he likes. It’s a free country, after all.

Nice if-pology idiotically framed as an apology from judge scolded by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh about their new rule on binding precedent

This is one of the scariest distortions I’ve read in the New York Times recently. The article focuses on the conditional apology given by a Reagan appointed federal judge after he was scolded by two bullies on the 6-3 Leonard Leo majority Supreme Court for not following “binding precedent” — an unsigned summary order, with no legal reasoning they released on an emergency basis to serve President Project 2025.  Their ruling on massive cuts to the The Department of Education, they scolded, obviously applied to cutting NIH grants to study cancer, Alzheimer’s, HIV and similar deadly plagues. This was a bit of unprecedented bullying by these radical right ideologues.   The Grey Lady styled it as the federal judge (who ruled correctly) messing up and legitimately being required to apologize.

Let us also note that an emergency application from Special Counsel Jack Smith languished for seven months before the 6-3 far right majority granted candidate Trump unprecedented blanket immunity for any crimes committed by a US president as part of his “core duties” (try to imagine the hypothetical where a president would have to commit a crime to do his job, the six provided none).   Their delayed ruling effectively ended the prosecutions of Trump for violating the Espionage Act (by taking classified documents to his home when he was out of office), obstructing justice (having his lawyers lie by claiming he’d returned everything), and trying to overturn the results of an election he was well aware he lost. 

In glaring contrast, every one of Trump’s emergency applications, complaining he’s not being allowed to commit random illegal acts, is immediately heard and almost invariably decided by the far right six in the hardened sociopath’s favor. As was his emergency application after he was busted by federal judges for illegally firing tens of thousands of civil servants without cause and violating other laws.

Here is the Gray Lady’s idiotic headline about the Supreme Court extending its power in a hideously fascistic manner (while neutering lower federal courts):

Judge Apologizes to Conservative Justices in Case Over N.I.H. Cuts

Judge Young said on Tuesday that he had not realized he was expected to rely on a slim three-page order issued with minimal legal reasoning in April to his case dealing with a different agency.

“Before we do anything, I really feel it’s incumbent upon me to — on the record here — to apologize to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if they think that anything this court has done has been done in defiance of a precedential action of the Supreme Court of the United States,” said Judge Young, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

“I can do nothing more than to say as honestly as I can: I certainly did not so intend, and that is foreign in every respect to the nature of how I have conducted myself as a judicial officer,” he added.

Since the beginning of President Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has sided with White House in nearly every case it has considered.

Source

Wrong headline.  Wrong framing.  Here’s a better headline, off the top of my head:

Respected federal judge bullied by Trump appointees for not recognizing their unsigned, three page “emergency” shadow docket ruling as binding precedent.

Honestly, I don’t know what’s wrong with the New York Times sometimes, they only intermittently serve the interests of democracy in their reporting.

For one thing, the federal judge’s apology was conditional — if I offended you, I’m sorry. This is known as an if-pology. The New York Times apparently doesn’t make this distinction. The judge defended his actions while “apologizing”– how was he expected to know an unsigned three page emergency ruling was now binding federal precedent according to two members of the highly partisan Supreme Court majority? How indeed? He had to be told by two of the six doctrinaire jurists who made their way up the far right judicial pipeline by proving their brazenness and fidelity to the dogma of their extremist judicial fraternity.

Read the rest of the article, it doesn’t spell things out with the greatest of clarity, but it eventually manages to make clear how offended the judge who apologized was to be singled out this way for an ass whupping by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch (two prep school bullies whose powerful mothers both assured them they were destined to sit on the Supreme Court). Another triumph of incoherence by Project 2025’s architects, with a snazzy assist from the journal of record.

Supreme Court precedents are binding rulings that all federal courts must follow. They are traditionally based on articulated legal reasoning, analyzing and evaluating the arguments of both sides in light of past Supreme Court decisions directly impacting the issue in question. Supreme Court holdings are based on centuries of case law, legislative history, the text of the Constitution, the merits of both sides of the constitutional argument presented.

These emergency “shadow docket” rulings, sometimes only a paragraph, answer only the narrow burning question placed in front of the court for immediate, emergency decision.  The Supreme Court, in the past, has rarely ruled this way, except on the eve of an execution, for example.  It is now routine for Trump to run to his appointees for these “shadow docket” rulings which are made without briefing or argument, citing no cases, no precedent, no legal analysis.  His record is something like 16-0 in these unsigned majority  orders.

To force federal judges to consider these abbreviated, unsigned emergency rulings “binding precedent” is an abomination on the Constitution, the specialty of this particular group of six transactional corporate assholes in robes. Shame on the Grey Lady for helping to obscure how radical and dangerous this latest overreach by these judicial arsonists is.

Nice bit (hic) from Jair Bolsonaro

Jair Bolsonaro, who managed, with the help of right wing judges, to have his popular opponent jailed for fake corruption charges right before former insurrectionist Bolsonaro was elected president of Brazil, (“lock him up! lock him up!”) lost his reelection bid after one term (to the man he locked up). Then, advised by Steve Bannon, he tried a January 6 style overthrow of the election results, and immediately (while still president) fled to the US for health reasons. He’s now on trial for his crimes against the constitution of Brazil. Courtesy of the Grey Lady:

He didn’t appear in court because of poor health, his defense team told reporters outside the courthouse. Ahead of the trial, one of his sons told a Brazilian news site Mr. Bolsonaro had been suffering from debilitating hiccups that the former president attributes to complications from a stabbing attack on the campaign trail in 2018. [1]

Trump’s “illegally” (subject to unsigned shadow docket order by the Federalist Six) imposed 75,000% tariff on Brazil when it stubbornly refused to halt the totally unfair persecution of democratically elected Hall of Fame hiccupper Jair Bolsonaro who had the presidency illegally stolen from him by communists and intellectuals in 2022 and didn’t do anything Trump and his people didn’t also do, literally, perfectly, legally, in the months prior to, and on, the Day of Love, January 6, 2021. Many people, billionaires and poor people alike, love dictators!

[1] 

Mr. Bolsonaro, 70, has been under house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, for weeks. Then, over the weekend, Brazilian authorities tightened security measures, placing police officers around his home amid worries that he may try to flee and possibly seek refuge at the U.S. Embassy near his home.

Prosecutors accuse Mr. Bolsonaro and seven members of his inner circle of overseeing a vast conspiracy to cling to power after his defeat at the polls in 2022, seeking to overturn the results, trying to enlist the military in their plot and drafting plans to poison Mr. Bolsonaro’s rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who is now Brazil’s president.

Mr. Bolsonaro and the other defendants face criminal charges, including the “violent abolition of the democratic rule of law” and “coup d’état.” If found guilty, Mr. Bolsonaro could be sentenced to more than 40 years in prison.

source

Note, the scrupulously fair to Nazis NY Times (see my upcoming post for more chilling details) presently does not allow me to easily attach a “gift” link to their articles.  This is a new innovation, I was able to attach a gift link yesterday. If you have a subscription to the NYT, you can read the rest of the article, perhaps now you can even without one.   The gist of the article is in this footnote.

How Nazis always do it

When it comes to manipulating public opinion, particularly regarding an embarrassment to the party in power, lead with an aggressive, lying attack directly contradicting the actual truth.

The Environmental Protection Agency [1], a thoughtful, forward-looking Nixon creation hated by Project 2025 and Leonard Leo’s Supreme Court, had its legs cut off by the 6-3 majority.  They ruled that the EPA does not have the authority to mandate carbon emissions from existing power plants. The 2022 decision also opened the door for a future Unitary Executive to have the final word over government scientists on most things formerly protected by the EPA.    Not enough for Project 2025, the arms and head had to be cut off too. 

So President Project 2025 obliged.

The Trump administration fired at least seven employees for signing a letter criticizing the agency’s leadership for undermining “the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.” The firings are, Amudalat Ajasa of the Washington Post noted, “an escalation of the administration’s effort to clamp down on dissent within the federal bureaucracy.”

Source

Here’s Trump appointee-speak (note the consistent sprachregelung, with piquant, aromatic notes of the boss’s seat) for what the EPA, and the entire federal government, which has the final say in every state, now stands for (and it’s not the so-called environment, woke mind virus infested cucks!)

“The Environmental Protection Agency has a zero-tolerance policy for career officials using their agency position and title to unlawfully undermine, sabotage, and undercut the will of the American public that was clearly expressed at the ballot box last November,” an EPA spokesperson said.

But [Heather adds], increasingly, it seems obvious that the administration is claiming a mandate for policies that voters did not intend to endorse.

Like Dr. Brainworm’s clueless concepts of a plan to make random little kids in airports not strike him as so mitochondrially defective.

Fuck those fucking putos.

They only get away with this incoherent, immoral, indecent, crude, lying lawlessness if good people stop fighting them at every turn. It is on us all, to pace ourselves and do whatever is in our power to do, Remember to stay encouraged by the uniformly high level of reckless idiocy and constant failure displayed by these mirthless assclowns [2] as they carry out their boss’s wildly unpopular cruelties. Do not accept deliberate incoherence as the final word.

[1]

The Environmental Protection Agency is an independent agency of the United States government tasked with environmental protection matters. President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. Wikipedia

[2] They might actually be asshats:

In the word’s official entry in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, lexicographers theorized that it could be a play on the phrase to “have one’s head up one’s ass,” an insult which, if pictured literally, would indeed result in the person’s ass serving as a sort of hat. However, the author concluded, “a more precise history will depend on the location of further attestations.” source

The Incoherence is the point

Adam Serwer, writing about Trump in 2018, came up with an excellent explainer of Trump and MAGA (and all fascist regimes, actually) “the cruelty is the point.” It is, indeed. Public cruelty to cow people and make those who love sadism thrill to the in-your-fucking-face-asshole aspect of the cruelty is exactly the point. Think of the disgusting excesses of ICE, Trump’s masked gestapo, and how, somehow, no laws apply to them anywhere in the United States because they have jurisdiction over immigration and customs. An immigrant who shows up for his immigration hearing and gets grabbed and sent to Sudan? BINGO — cruel! Consider the recent FBI raid on John Bolton’s home in Bethesda, Md. The FBI closed the street he lives on at 7 a.m., sent in a dozen vans with sirens blaring and lights flashing, not because Bolton posed any threat to anyone (though he is one of the most despicable neo-con assholes of the last 30 years) but to make a very public spectacle of humiliating this Trump critic in a naked act of revenge using the full power of the state.

So, absolutely, the politics of cruelty is an essential feature of Trumpism/fascism, got to try to keep everyone scared into compliance. What strikes me over and over in the Age of Trump is the incoherence of the relentless conman and his administration, and the MAGA insistence that incoherence, from the mouths of their leaders, is just as valid as the most well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments. Trump is the same as Hitler in this regard, or Stalin, or Putin, or any other boldly incoherence-spouting thug that has attained that level of power. Of course Ukraine started the war with Russia, it’s vicious insistence on its right to exist as an independent nation is an eternal provocation that must be redressed with overwhelming violence! What choice did Putin have?

As destructive, or more destructive, than the cruelty: The Incoherence is the Point. Destroy the possibility of truth and any dialogue not based entirely on lying, outrageous, hyper-partisan talking points. The incidence of voter fraud in all elections since 1982? Vanishingly small, statistically insignificant, something like 0.0001% of all votes cast — nonetheless, voter fraud is, according to MAGA, and amplified on ‘both sides’ corporate media (not to mention on Fair and Balanced FOX), the gravest threat to democracy our threatened nation of American carnage has ever faced. Tax money invested in renewable energy? Waste, fraud and abuse, based on a liberal hoax spread by climate alarmists, people who irrationally hate fossil fuel!

Vaccines kill, they don’t save anybody from anything. Food and medicine for starving children outside the USA, waiting in warehouses as Congress appropriated the funds for their distribution long ago? Let it rot, it’s all waste, fraud and abuse, 103 dying per hour worldwide is fine, it’s not happening here, those are shithole countries. Making voting too easy for everybody kills democracy. The party in power may do whatever it likes to retain power and disenfranchise political opponents, that is the will of the plurality that gave them their overwhelming mandate to rule. Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell totally exonerates “gentleman” Trump of allegations of sex with minors! She said so herself, in exchange for transfer to a nicer prison, fair is fair! There are countless examples of childish senselessness every day from Trump and his lackeys.

Here’s a beautiful illustration. What kind of demented idiot wears a hat, referring to himself in the third person, announcing that he was right about everything? You guessed it.

You can see the thought bubble over his sleepy looking face.

“He was right to take the classified documents and lie about having them, he made a shit ton of money selling them and got away with it, so no crime. He was right to foment a riot to try to stay in power, after the fake elector plot was foiled by a traitor vice president, because everybody around him was a coward and a liar who pretended the election wasn’t stolen. History proved him right, and all the so-called convicted rioters were totally vindicated of ‘wrongdoing’ with pardons on day one. Fraudulent use of charitable donations? Impossible, the money was given to him, to him! And by ‘he’, of course, I mean me. Always me, a person who is and was and will be always right, about everything, obviously!”