Imbecile-in-chief intent on laughing last

Of all the damage this destructive narcissist has done so far, the thing that probably irks me the most (from a competitive list) is his despicable championing of a down-the-line partisan hack with multiple skeletons in his closet for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court [1].   The Federalist Society poster boy (a life member who was in its inaugural class at Yale Law School in the 1980s) will rule on important legal issues, unappealably, for possibly decades.  Every one of his votes can be predicted based on the issues involved, the position radical, corporatist conservatives favor, and his thoroughly consistent past rulings.   There were twenty-four other names on the list the Federalist Society gave Trump, yet the president chose to force the most despicable controversial and openly divisive of them on America.   For a generation.

Looking at choir boy Kavanaugh’s perpetually smiling face, looming out of his black judicial robes, makes me sick.   It’s tempting to use words like “scumbag” and “piece of shit”, but you get the point.   If an ugly, syphlitic penis had a face, it would be that self-satisfied, smirking mug.

I just read an excellent article by a writer named Megan Garber about the power of uproarious mockery and how Trump used it against Christine Blasey Ford, whose testimony was so vulnerably candid and powerful that even FOX news was in despair, during the break in the hearings, wringing its collective hands that Kavanaugh’s chance for appointment to the Supreme Court was over.  That was before Kavanaugh “manned up” in the afternoon session to forcefully strike back against his vicious enemies, crying, snorting and accusing, aided by a shrill, indignant Lindsay Graham and an insurmountable one vote Republican party-line majority in the Judiciary Committee.

A few days later, while the FBI was doing a very limited, five day complete investigation into Blasey Ford’s accusations, Trump, in Mississippi, had a rally of supporters cracking up at her expense.    From Megan Garber’s account:

I had one beer,” the president, imitating Ford, said, thrusting his index finger upward to emphasize the number. He kept the digit upraised. “I had one beer!

The president then added another character to his routine: an anonymous interrogator of Ford. “Well, do you think it was—” he began to ask.

Nope!” he said, gleefully interrupting himself and his fictional questioner. “It was one beer.” The joke built speed. “How did you get home? I don’t remember.How did you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember.How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.

At this, the crowd at the rally guffawed. They cheered. They broke out into applause. The president, thus galvanized, thus supported, thus loved, continued his one-man interrogation: “What neighborhood was it in? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don’t know. But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember.

Of course, she remembered an awful lot of specifics, including, vividly, Kavanaugh’s drunken, dickish face looming over her as he held her down and groped her and his drunk friend Mark Judge nearby.  She remembered enough for the FBI to have easily found the exact home in which the attack took place that summer afternoon in 1982 — within a walk of the Country Club where she swam–  in  a locked room on the second floor, across from the bathroom at the top of the stairs.   Had the FBI been permitted to fully investigate, or even interview more than a small, select handful of “witnesses”, let alone talk to Kavanaugh or Blasey Ford, the specifics could easily have been confirmed.   Instead “Boof” Kavanaugh was.

Megan Garber includes this from what should have been Blasey Ford’s “end of story” testimony: 

“What is the strongest memory you have, the strongest memory of the incident, something you cannot forget?” Patrick Leahy, the Democratic senator from Vermont, asked Ford last Thursday, during her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The professor of psychology, serving as her own expert witness in the attack that she alleged Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge perpetrated, replied: “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.”

“You’ve never forgotten them laughing at you,” Leahy said.

“They were laughing with each other,” Ford replied.

“And you were the object of the laughter?”

“I was underneath one of them, while the two laughed.”

“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.”

Contrast this level of certainty and detail to what was contained in the written answers Trump gave to the Special Counsel during the investigation of his possible criminal conspiracy with Russia during his historic 2016 presidential campaign and his ongoing (and continuing) pattern of obstruction of justice, a pattern that escalated dramatically and immediately once the Special Counsel was appointed. 

Remember that these written answers were submitted because the president’s lawyers had ruled out an interview with Mueller, a guaranteed “perjury trap”  since the president has proved himself, over and over, to be simply incapable of not lying.    Trump’s lawyers’ written answers claimed he had no memory of anything, no detail too large or too small for him to have no recollection of.   

Mueller called these answers “inadequate, incomplete, imprecise and insufficient”.  A good description, certainly of the stand-up guy president’s final answer, to a detailed question about the soon to be sentenced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

TRUMP:

[no answer provided] 

Why this has hilarious FUCK YOU not been more widely publicized, I have no idea.   

The evasive and “inadequate” written answers and Mueller’s detailed queries have been on-line for a while.  You can read them here.  Scroll down to the last one for the punchline, or just check out the question and its “insufficient” answer below.  [2]   

Hilarious, no?

 

[1]  multiple accounts of years of his black out “beer” drinking, two independent, credible and detailed accounts of gross sexual impropriety (the one at Yale never investigated at all, in spite of numerous witnesses to it coming forward during the confirmation hearings), his denial of details of his close association with his disgraced former mentor Alex Kozinsky (and Kozinsky’s sexually explicit listserve), a long pattern of extreme partisanship including aggressive prosecution of then president Bill Clinton and undisclosed, classified services rendered to Dubya Bush, including during the controversial Florida recount episode.   

There was enough controversy that the voice of American Jesuits said Kavanaugh must withdraw his name from consideration.  Instead the blameless jurist made a tearful, snorting partisan speech accusing the Clintons of launching a well-funded dark money campaign of revenge against him — an unhinged speech that should have disqualified him.   To wit:

A calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. 

[2]

SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:

b. Following the Obama Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 (“Russia sanctions”), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions? If yes, describe who you spoke with about this issue, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

c. On December 29 and December 31, 2016, LTG Flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Russia sanctions and Russia’s response to the Russia sanctions.

i. Did you direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?

ii. Were you told in advance of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation that he was going to be speaking with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, describe who told you this information, when, and what you were told. If no, when and from whom did you learn of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation with Ambassador Kislyak?

iii. When did you learn of LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak’s call on December 31, 2016? Who told you and what were you told?

iv. When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?

d. At any time between December 31, 2016, and January 20, 2017, did anyone tell you or suggest to you that Russia’s decision not to impose reciprocal sanctions was attributable in any way to LTG Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, and the substance of what you were told.

e. On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post published a column that stated that LTG Flynn phoned Ambassador Kislyak several times on December 29, 2016. After learning of the column, did you direct or suggest to anyone that LTG Flynn should deny that he discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, who did you make this suggestion or direction to, when, what did you say, and why did you take this step?

i. After learning of the column, did you have any conversations with LTG Flynn about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016? If yes, describe when those discussions occurred and the content of the discussions.

f. Were you told about a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov that took place in December 2016?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting.

g. Were you told about a meeting or meetings between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev or any other representative from the Russian government that took place in January 2017?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting(s).

h. Prior to January 20, 2017, did you talk to Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, or any other individual associated with the transition regarding establishing an unofficial line of communication with Russia? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of such an unofficial line of communication.

TRUMP:

(No answer provided.)

Denier-in-Chief and the ‘rational observer’

The easily manipulable winner in the Oval Office has a simple mantra, honed at the hideous breast of the evil Roy Cohn, “I know you are, but what am I?  Make me. loser!”  It is his life’s credo.   It has served America’s Greatest Winner well, eventually giving him the loudest megaphone in the world.

Yesterday, with great cosmic timing (right after two bloody mass killings by deranged white assholes with high-powered guns designed for military assaults) Cesar Sayoc, the guy who sent non-functioning pipe bombs to many of the president’s many vicious enemies, was sentenced to twenty years in prison.  

His lawyers made a plea for leniency, as every good lawyer must in advocating for their client.   Sayoc, portrayed by his advocates as a man of limited cognitive abilities, had been repeatedly raped by a priest at the Catholic boarding school he was sent to and was a chemically addled victim of his longtime steroid abuse.  He was a loner, estranged from his family and addicted to Fox News.   And, of course, he was madly in love with and devoted to father figure Donald J. Trump.

As Sayoc’s lawyers persuasively wrote:

At a rally in October 2018, around the time Mr. Sayoc sent the packages, President Trump announced that Democrats “destroy people. They want to destroy people. These are really evil people.” See Maggie Haberman & Peter Baker, Trump Taunts Christine Blasey Ford at Rally, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 2, 2018).7
In his statements, Trump specifically blamed many of the individuals whom Mr. Sayoc ultimately targeted with his packages. For example, on June 25, 2018, President Trump tweeted:
Screen shot 2019-08-06 at 2.33.52 PM.png

A rational observer may have brushed off Trump’s tweets as hyperbole, but  Mr. Sayoc took them to heart.

This “rational observer” is the law’s “reasonable man” a person who does, in a given situation, what any reasonable person would do.   It is unfair to convict somebody of doing something any reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, and so the law uses the standard of reasonableness to assess whether someone has committed a crime or just done the reasonable thing.   Still, the phrase has a deafening echo in today’s America:  “a rational observer”.   Where do we find such a creature?

Fox news apparently ran this headline in the immediate aftermath of the latest mass murders, in El Paso and Dayton, by enraged white cowards with assault rifles :   

“Dems unleash profane attacks on Trump, Republicans over mass shootings”

(here you go, have a good time)

A rational observer, cruder than myself, might say “I got your fucking profane attacks right here, you racist, fear-mongering, democracy-hating, tyranny-enabling, massacre-inciting, lying sacks of fucking right-wing shit”. Of course, that kind of harsh, angry language only plays into the Fox/NRA/Koch/Republic Party narrative. You see, in that universe, the real problem is that Dems are fucking sick fucks, dangerous, evil, some of the worst people, the worst people, traitors and criminals, with filthy fucking toilet mouths, too.

So, while it might seem to be irrational to keep appealing to a ‘rational observer’, I can’t help but notice a few things in the above section of the pleadings of Sayoc’s  lawyers.

As they wrote, citing a piece from the lying, failing, desperate, traitorous, freedom-hating, openly communist rag, that Enemy of the People par excellence, the NY Times:  

At a rally in October 2018, around the time Mr. Sayoc sent the packages, President Trump announced that Democrats “destroy people. They want to destroy people. These are really evil people.” 

In fairness to the president, the partisan Dems were then in the process of viciously and unfairly attacking his controversial extremist, charter member of the Federalist Society, former choirboy [1] nominee to fill Anthony Kennedy’s carefully orchestrated Supreme Court vacancy. [2]  Be fair!   Who among us was not, at one time or another, a blackout drunk at the expensive, exclusive prep school we went to?   Who among us, in a drunken state, did not at least once try to feel up a younger girl against her will?  Come on, now.

At that same Trump reelection rally where the president called Democrats “really evil people” he famously mocked the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, a troubled woman who clearly had everything to gain (aside from her lost privacy, death threats, being forced to move with her family several times, etc.) and nothing to lose (aside from her privacy, her home, freedom from hate mail and death threats, etc.).   Trump mockingly said, to a crowd that loved it, that Blasey Ford couldn’t remember anything.  Didn’t know where it happened, when it happened, whose house it was at, who was there, why she was there, all she recalled was that this well-loved girl’s basketball coach, unbelievably great judge and defender of America was the one who drunkenly fell on her and tried to take her clothes off. The crowd ate this delicious mockery up as Trump did that famous thing were it looks like he’s sort of smiling.

It would be crass of me to point out that the president was lying about most of this.  She knew when it happened, in the summer after her Sophomore year in high school, she knew the approximate date.   She did not know the exact location of the house she was in only once, but it was within walking distance of the country club she’d been swimming at and clearly belonged to the parents of one of a small handful of teenagers assembled there that day.   She explained that she knew who Brett Kavanaugh was, had seen him before.  She described the physical layout of the house, exactly where the assault took place, who else was there in that room with her and Kavanaugh, and exactly why the traumatic event was seared so photographically in her memory.

The pathetic Jeff Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who had already announced he was leaving the Senate, had a weak-kneed moment of conscience after pressure was applied to him following Blasey Ford’s credible testimony (recall that Fox was wringing its collective hands after she spoke to that Committee, every pundit on the air at the time predicted Kavanaugh’s nomination was toast.)   Flake eventually refused to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination going before Moscow Mitch and the senate until a severely limited FBI probe was promised.  

The “probe” lasted less than a week.  The FBI felt no need to interview Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh, or any of the many witnesses who contacted the FBI to be interviewed.  In that short five day time span, with severe pressure and limitations from the White House, the FBI was unable to determine whose house the alleged attack had taken place in (which would have enabled them to verify Blasey Ford’s detailed description of the layout), or find anyone who could remember that otherwise unremarkable day when a younger girl nobody knew was arguably groped, behind closed doors upstairs, by a well-known prep school drunk. Therefore, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, Justice Kavanaugh, sir!   51-49, done and done and suck it, libtard cucks.

Now all this would have been sickening enough, to a rational observer, if we didn’t have this to add to it.

Trump’s lawyers knew he’d be incapable of avoiding perjury if he spoke under oath to Mueller’s investigators.   The famous “perjury trap” that no compulsive liar can avoid, if pressured enough, or at all, or even if not pressured at all.  They prudently forbade him from answering spoken questions, consenting instead to written answers to written questions.  

Each of these detailed questions was answered “I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t have any independent recollection, I can’t seem to recall, I don’t recall being aware,  I can’t say for certain, I’m not sure, who could be expected to remember a detail like that? I had no reason to notice it…” and so on.

Dubya Bush’s moronic former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez testified in a similar fashion when he was summoned to Congress over something.  Jon Stewart (a comedian attacked by Trump) noted to Bill Moyers that Gonzalez would rather be seen as a ” low functioning pinhead” who could literally remember nothing than as someone disloyal to the president.   The only other possibility was that Gonzalez was a perjurer, so he went with pinhead who had zero recollection of anything.  The Extremely Stable Genius, same deal.  No memory of anything because, you know, fuck you.

I direct the rational observer to one final fun fact.   In those non answers Trump’s lawyers crafted to keep him out of his “perjury trap” (in fairness to Trump, his inability to tell the truth does not appear to be voluntary) one stands out as the world’s greatest example of what Mueller called, with mind-blowing understatement “inadequate answers”.  

It was the president’s answer to Mueller’s final original question (follow up questions were ignored by White House counsel).   The question was a minefield for Trump and his team of lawyers, it involved convicted but not yet sentenced (or pardoned) former National Security Adviser Michael “Lock Her UP!” Flynn.   Trump’s answer reads, in its entirety:    

TRUMP:

(No answer provided.) [3]

 

here is part of what the Denier-in-Chief squeezed out of his tweethole immediately after his new Roy Cohn, Bagpiper Bill Barr, completely and totally exonerated him of any wrongdoing, ever, in the past, present and future:

Screen shot 2019-05-16 at 3.02.56 PM

To a rational observer, “sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason” would be taken considering the hyperbolic, often hysterical sounding source.

To a disturbed, threatened white patriot with a powerful gun, surrounded by Mexican rapists, surly Negroes, politically correct Social Justice Warriors… what more needs to be said by the president to let you know what should happen now that it’s “finally time to turn the tables and bring justice” to these vicious, toilet mouthed criminal motherfuckers?

To a rational observer, I mean.

 

 

[1]  It has been my feeling, since seeing the former choir boy break down alternately crying and snarling at the well-funded cabal of dark-money Clinton-loving partisan liars who orchestrated Blasey Ford’s unfounded attack  for all of America to see, a sick attempt to “destroy his life”, that Kavanaugh– and I add that I have only a feeling, a mere opinion, a suspicion, not a jot or tittle of evidence — was most likely diddled by a priest in his day.  If this was so, who could blame him for his righteous rage?  

[2]  Kennedy, as part of his inducement to retire during Trump’s presidency, was given input into which of his former clerks he’d like to see nominated to fill his chair on the Supreme Court.  NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!

[3] Read all the answers to the Special Counsel Trump claimed to have written by himself here.

 

 

Iron-willed Ditz and Birther “Judge”

Nancy Pelosi is Neville Chamberlain, as history will soon show, unfortunately.   An iron-willed version of Chamberlain, no doubt, one who knows how to wield power and get her party in line with whatever she decides.   Her party, according to Madam Speaker, is waiting for something more dramatic, more convincing, more of a total popularly approved slam dunk, than this seamless pattern of a mere ten obstructive acts detailed in the report Mueller handed to presidential bodyguard Bagpiper Bill now four months ago.   Each act was part of a long (and ongoing) pattern of obstruction of justice, each was done to impede or end a lawful investigation, with the intent to impede or end that investigation:  

1  President Trump asked the FBI director to shut down the investigation into National Security Advisor Michael Flynn

2  President Trump said he fired FBI director Comey because of the Russia Investigation

3 President Trump ordered White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller   

4  President Trump attempted to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation 

5  President Trump prevented the public disclosure of evidence 

6  President Trump wanted Attorney General Sessions to “unrecuse” from the Russia investigation   

7  President Trump directed White House counsel Don McGahn to create false documents that covered up the truth from investigators

8  President Trump tried to discourage Campaign chairman Paul Manafort and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn from cooperating with the Special Counsel’s investigation 

9  President Trump encouraged Michael Cohen to lie about Trump Tower Moscow

10  President Trump tried to get his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen not to cooperate with the investigation.   

But according to Speaker Pelosi, this is not a very dramatic and convincing pattern of corrupt and arguably illegal actions by our in-your-face contemptuous president.   

He’s right, by the way, in this case, to feel contempt for the Democratic party.   I feel it too.   I watched Adam Schiff’s body language as he stood next to the confidently dithering leader of his party, his face said it too.  He was having a hard time keeping a neutral expression on his face, a scowl off of it.    “We are using the courts to try to get a ruling,” Nancy Pelosi explained.  Jerald Nadler added that once the court rules, as it should, that this blanket protective executive privilege, this ridiculously over-broad claim of immunity, is groundless that they’ll be able to subpoena everybody and they’ll have to appear, and produce documents.   He did his best, next to the Speaker, but Nadler didn’t seem particularly convinced either.   They looked like the beaming Pelosi’s dazed captives up there.   Elijah Cummings gave Pelosi some fiery support, speaking with some force and gripping the podium with both hands (since he was no longer holding on to his walker).

The most powerful player in that party right now is an iron-willed ditz with an unshakeable theory — that impeachment that doesn’t result in Trump’s removal from office will strengthen the corrupt, lying strongman president in 2020.   The best thing to do, according to the iron-willed ditz, is wait — until he actually shoots somebody in the face on Fifth Avenue and skull fucks their corpse, on live TV.

You can understand her worry when you see the caliber of the president’s defenders.   They were on powerful display yesterday at the Mueller hearings.   I was lucky enough to catch Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert’s riveting performance.     Gohmert [1] went ballistic, after first holding up a pamphlet he introduced into evidence.   The pamphlet was called Robert Mueller Unmasked.  Gohmert was too modest to mention that he was the author of the 48 page illustrated document proudly displayed on-line at hannity.com.   It makes the case that Mueller is the worst, simply the fucking worst.   It ends:

If you want answers, and you CAN handle the truth, join me in demanding those answers from “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller, along with his resignation. If he were to resign, it could well be the only truly moral, ethical and decent action Mueller has undertaken in this entire investigation.

There’s a ton of great shit in there, and it’s impeccably reasoned and beautifully written, of course, and also illustrated.   I’ll give you just a snapshot, just the opening salvo, since it’s worth scrolling quickly through this well-done strong opinion piece in its entirety (if only to see the several illustrations):

ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED

by Congressman Louie Gohmert

Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.

I do not make these statements lightly.

Each time I prepared to question Mueller during Congressional hearings, the more concerned I became about his work ethic. Then as I went back to begin compiling all that information in order to recount personal interactions with Mueller, the more clearly the big picture began to come into focus. At one point I had to make the decision to stop adding to this or it would turn into a far too lengthy project.

My goal was to share some first-hand information as other Republican Members of Congress had requested, adding, “You seem to know so much about him.” This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege. Judging by Mueller’s history, it doesn’t matter who he has to threaten, harass, prosecute or bankrupt to get someone to be willing to allege something—anything—about our current President, it certainly appears Mueller will do what it takes to bring down his target, ethically, or unethically, based on my findings.

 Since we now seem to  be living in the sound byte/twitter-ruled land of the freakish and the home of the braying, let me not assume an American attention span sufficient to read all of the material quoted above.   Here’s the takeaway from a former “judge” [2], Texas’s own Louie Gohmert:

This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege.

Spoken like a true Texas judge, circa 1858.   “We’ll give the filthy, thieving varmint a fair trial and hang him, and let’s make it quick, boys, Ah need lunch, Ah’m starvin’.”

Democrats yesterday tried to get Mueller to say that only the OLC memo prevented him from referring Trump’s obstruction case for prosecution.   Mueller would not go quite that far, though he said that the OLC memo prevented him from making a traditional prosecutorial decision about the sitting president’s actions (as his report said, though Barr claimed in his famously misleading summary, and afterwards, that the OLC memo had nothing to do with anything).   

Mueller confirmed for his Democratic questioners that Trump refused to testify, for about a year, and would have tied up a subpoena in court for a long time, preventing the completion of the investigation into coordinated, wide-spread Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller’s task was to publish his findings about Russian interference in the presidential contest, which he documented, characterized as “sweeping and systematic”,  and warned of repeatedly (and which Mitch McConnell refuses to allow the Senate to address in any way — the help was good in 2016, it’ll be great in 2020).  Mueller added that Trump’s inadequate written answers were often contradicted by credible evidence.  Mueller-speak for “Trump was not entirely truthful in his inadequate. arguably evasive, answers”.   (Sworn answers to a federal investigator that are not truthful are… p-p-p-perjury…)

Republicans, in contrast, didn’t care about the old news report that Barr had already disposed of.  They focused on indignantly showing what a pathetic, corrupt dupe of Commies and transsexual Mexican zombie abortionists the “Special Prosecutor” (as Gohmert refers to him in his final challenge on the damning hannity.com pamphlet) is, and how viciously and ineptly the vile partisan Mueller went after a completely innocent man, a man who should never have been investigated in the first place (we’re looking into that!) and was revealed, even by these Trump-hating traitors, to be completely and totally exonerated, exculpated, found not guilty of every and all charges.

We get the government we deserve.  We have earned this shit show, we really have.

What happened to the millions who ran into the streets wearing pussy hats, flocked to airports to immediately protest the Muslim ban, who assembled in a huge throng to support climate science?    Got tired out and shouted down by an innocent mad man and his most ardent supporters (including America’s top law enforcement official) who, believe it, would not hesitate to beat you to death if they thought you posed a real threat to the spotless reputation of the greatest leader this country has ever had. 

Speaker Pelosi urges us all to wait and see.  Maybe the paperless 2020 election won’t be hacked by anyone (although an 11 year-old recently demonstrated how small a challenge it currently is to do so), maybe those 78,000 surgically targeted Electoral College votes won’t appear again, as if by magic, in the proper number in every single district needed to win each state’s electors and amass the Electoral College majority to legally elect this innocent and good man to another four years of glory.

Nancy Pelosi, by refusing to allow an impeachment investigation to go forward, is Neville Chamberlain.   The end of democracy is taking place on her fretful, calculating, vote counting, party disciplined watch.   An iron-willed ditz, confidently wringing her hands with that great smile as the clock runs out on protecting our constitutional system.

 

[1]  Early in Obama’s second term, Gohmert (apparently an ardent Birther) sponsored a bill to make sure we never again have a Kenyan secret-Muslim president.    As Wikipedia reports:

On July 29, 2009, Gohmert signed on as a co-sponsor of the defeated H.R. 1503. This bill would have amended “the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the office of president under the Constitution”.[13]

Some of his other well-researched positions:

Gohmert does not believe in manmade climate change, and has asserted that data supporting the theory is fraudulent.[30] He opposes cap-and-trade legislation, such as the one that was passed in the U.S. House when it had a Democratic majority, and supports expanding drilling, and exploration and drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).[30]

Gohmert is pro-life and opposes abortion. He has stated that he believes that life begins at conception. Gohmert sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act. Gohmert voted for the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, a bill that prohibits the transportation of a minor across state lines for the purposes of an abortion without the consent of the minor’s parents. He has 100% pro-life voting record rating from the National Right to Life Committee(NRLC).[39][40]

In December, 2018, Gohmert made national news headlines as a guest on Fox News. Gohmert digressed from the topic of Google to assert an unrelated and defamatory allegation about Holocaust survivor and philanthropist George Soros. The allegation, which is popular on right wing propaganda websites but has been thoroughly debunked by credible news sources, denigrates Soro’s childhood experiences during the Holocaust. Later, Stuart Varney of Fox News apologized for Gohmert’s “false allegations” against Soros.[74]

 

[2]   Gohmert actually did serve as a Texas judge.  The quotes around “Judge” refer to this:

join me in demanding those answers from “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller, along with his resignation.

Bagpiper Bill– INNOVATOR Extraordinaire

Bill Barr has always been an innovator, a legal visionary, skating on new edges of the law to defend his powerful clients when they appear to be on the ropes.    When George H. W. Bush, after losing his reelection bid, was deeply worried about being outed as an Iran-Contra participant in Cap Weinberger’s notes, Barr went to work.   Bush would be out of office when Weinberger’s felony trial began, powerless to prevent the detailed meeting notes Weinberger kept from coming into evidence.   Bush’s legacy would be tarnished (or worse), since he’d been insisting for years he knew nothing about the ongoing plan to thwart the will of Congress, illegally funding right wing death squads in Central America with illegal sales of military equipment to the mullahs of Iran.    Enter Bush’s new A.G. Bagpiper Bill Barr- et, voila (a flourish of the bagpipes, please) a genius solution: a PRE-Trial (why not?) PARDON.  NOTHING TO SEE HERE.  FOREVER.  THE END.

When Mueller’s report came out, after immediately sharing the unredacted pages with Trump’s actual White House attorneys, Barr strongly defended Donald Trump in a series of live televised infomercials for Trump’s innocence.   His explanation for a series of actions by Trump that have a strong appearance that the president was trying to thwart, or obstruct, investigations into his suspicious conduct was elegantly simple, and unique:  Trump knew he was innocent and so was understandably angry and frustrated, which is why he did what he did to stop the investigations into his innocence.   He acted out of anger and frustration, as any one of us would, not with the corrupt intent to obstruct justice.  You dig?

This novel “he was angry and frustrated” defense was based on placing reasonable (or even unreasonable, doesn’t matter for our purposes) doubt on a key component needed to convict someone of the crime of obstruction of justice: corrupt intent.  In Barr’s innovative and generous view (towards his patrons, all others– mange le merde, comme un dit), there was nothing corrupt about a man who is justifiably angry and frustrated, doing whatever he can to make people criticizing him just shut the hell up.  He added the absurd touch that Mueller “admitted” that the president had been “angry and frustrated” once the investigation targeted his actions.   You see?   Mueller agreed!   

The absurdity of this defense is embarrassing, but it was also effective for those who want to see our lying, sociopath president put another staunch Federalist on the Supreme Court.  How do you like 6-3, LIBTARDS!   How about another tax break for those making more than $50,000,000 a year?   And renewed protection of those pure, blameless fetuses, who must be born, and baptized, or else are condemned, prenatally, to eternity in hell’s flames?

This is all old news, of course, Barr made this intelligence insulting “angry and frustrated” defense of his master months ago.  What reminded me of the “angry and frustrated” defense was that another loyal Republican zombie (I believe it was House minority leader Kevin McCarthy)  used it the other day to justify Trump’s race-baiting tweet about brown-skinned Congresswomen going back to the crime-infested places you come from.    He’s not a racist, said the Republican, not at all, he was just angry and frustrated!   You know, wink, wink, how these black women can be such haughty bitches!   “Angry and frustrated” the new get out of jail card!

“Your honor, my client did not commit assault with intent to inflict serious bodily harm when he broke the victim’s face.   His intent was only that he was angry and frustrated, as anyone would have been, subjected to the victim’s harsh ‘wit’.   She had been openly and ruthlessly mocking him, your Honor, and my client doesn’t take that, even from a seventy-five year old woman in a wheelchair!   He was acting out of anger and frustration, that’s all.  When he said ‘I’ll kill you, you black bitch” he was only expressing understandable anger and frustration at this vicious loudmouth with the now justifiably broken face.”

The other great Barr innovation in defense of Trump is the “public” exemption for things that would otherwise appear to be crimes.  Barr reminds us over and over that all of these suspicious looking acts, OK, many of them, were done publicly.   The old legal principle applies:  if you publicly rape somebody, it’s not rape.   Same for murder, if you do it with a gun on Fifth Avenue during rush hour, openly and without trying to hide it, well, that’s not really murder is it?   It’s something else.  Nobody knows what, but, if it was done out of anger and frustration, you understand… well, who could blame the poor fellow?

I would much prefer hearing the plump, handsome A.G. play the bagpipes (he’s won competitions, I understand) than listen to anymore of his “legal” pronouncements piously spoken, breath scented with the pungent aroma of his master’s anus.

Trump’s margin of victory in 2016

The numbers on Trump’s actual margin of victory in 2016, once you pop them into a calculator, are pretty stunning.

Trump, although what he claimed was fraud cost him the popular vote (by 2.9 million [1] )  won the Electoral College by a handy margin in 2016.   He did this by taking every single “swing state” he needed to capture to pass the 270 electoral votes needed to become president, under this peculiar democratic safeguard system that was devised during the days of the Peculiar Institution.    

Northern states were less inclined than southern states to support the Peculiar Institution (slavery).   This is because the north was more industrialized and farmed by small farmers, while the less populous southern states, where large farms (plantations) used slave labor to produce monoculture cash crops (tobacco, cotton).   Safeguards were needed to protect the rights of that vulnerable slaveholding minority against the tyranny of a potential slavery hating majority — thus the 3/5 Compromise (one slave equals 3/5 of a white man for apportioning Congressional seats) and the Electoral College.  Fair is fair.  

Trump handily took the Electoral College — 304 to 227.   He won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by a total of 78,000 votes, combined.  [1]   This number is 0.000312% of the estimated 250,000,000 American voters.  Of  course, I intensely dislike the man, so I have jiggered the numbers to make him look less popular than he actually is.  Only about 138,000,000 Americans voted in 2016, in a contest between the two most hated political figures in America.   That means Trump’s robust Electoral College margin was actually closer to a convincing 0.000609375%.   A mandate, a historic mandate, really.   Suck it, Dem losers!

Jeez, no wonder Nancy Pelosi is so afraid of doing anything that might empower him or rile up his base!

 

[1] 

According to the final tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes). If Clinton had won all three states, she would have won the Electoral College 278 to 260.     source

 

Business as usual — running out the clock on the American experiment in representative democracy

I’d planned to get back to writing about my father, having had a renewed offer to get the story of my father’s life into printed book form recently.   Business as usual, and what Sekhnet has taken to calling my lack of executive function, has prevented me from starting to reframe the long manuscript into a svelte 250 page telling of the story of my poor father’s life.   I started a post on the reframing several days ago, but it got lost in my morbid fascination with our lying attorney general and the slow-motion horror show that is proceeding in our enraged, ill-informed nation.

My father would be worked up these days too, no doubt, if he were not already an insensate skeleton.  Three and a half months ago Mueller handed his completed report and a fully redacted executive summary to the new A.G., Bagpiper Bill Barr.   Barr, it should be noted, is an accomplished bagpiper.  I believe he may have won bagpiping competitions.   My father, oddly enough, always loved the bagpipes, but I don’t think he would have loved Bagpiper Bill in the least.   Bill is running the clock, like the pro he is.  

My father used to be a bit disgusted to see a college team running out the clock toward the end of a close game, spreading out and passing the ball in a methodical way that made it virtually impossible for the other team to have a chance to score.   Unsportsmanlike, if very pragmatic, to keep passing the ball that way, ahead by a couple of points and freezing the action until the other team desperately fouled, hoping for a rebound and a chance to score, as the clock wound down to 0.

Almost four months ago Robert S. Mueller III handed in his report to the A.G.   Barr spent months spinning the findings with a bravura flair for untruthfulness, is spinning them still.   Mueller was subpoenaed and was scheduled to testify before two House committees on July 17.  Then, as it happened, not enough members of Congress had read his long report, they needed more time to get questions ready for Mueller.  This delay was apparently at the behest of Democrats, looking at their one shot to convince their party’s iron-willed political strategist Speaker Pelosi that what is described in the obstruction section of Mueller’s is much worse than what Nixon was accused of in the third Article of Impeachment against him.

Instead of discussions of the report’s actual contents, partisan spins have been offered on both sides, parsing short cryptical public comments by Mueller, two months ago, and continual, ever flowing less ambiguously exculpatory ones by Barr.  

So Mueller is now scheduled to testify, for three televised hours, on July 24, four months to the day from when Barr presented his misleading conclusions a couple of days after Mueller delivered his finished report, and fully redacted executive summary, to his boss.   Nice way to run four months off the ticking game clock, boys. Mueller will now speak to Congress on July 24, in three hours of must-see TV, and then, two days later, Congress will go on its well-earned six week vacation.

Democracy is on a ventilator — as our unchecked, unmoored president, who came into power on a robust, surgical 78,000 vote victory in several key states to win the Electoral College, has found his Roy Cohn at last — and these public servants are leaving Washington for some nice R & R before resuming their grueling campaign financing schedules in the fall.   My father would dismiss this last bit as within their rights, as business as usual and nothing to get excited about.   People can’t be expected to sacrifice their paid vacations, he would say.

Still, William Barr, the openly corrupt president’s handpicked gunsel, I know would be giving the old man fits.  The latest is that he succeeded in preventing the two former DOJ attorneys who worked with Mueller from voluntarily testifying to Congress.  The NY Times (which the old man read cover to cover every day)  reports:

And, for now at least, Democrats have agreed to proceed without immediate access to Mr. Mueller’s top deputies that had previously been incorporated into his appearance on Capitol Hill. Both House panels had expected to have a chance to question the deputies, Aaron Zebley and James L. Quarles III, in private after Mr. Mueller’s public testimony.

The Justice Department had objected to such questioning and directed the men not to appear. But the reason for the change was not immediately clear.

source

Almost two months ago, Barr told an interviewer on a CBS broadcast:

From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.

source

It’s hard to disagree with Bagpiper Bill.   It’s not as if this president was an illegitimate trickster, born in Kenya and living here under a false birth certificate, the real one disqualifying him from running for president, a secret Muslim with a name so suspiciously like Osama that when Bin Laden was killed virtually every newscaster flubbed the name of the executed terrorist, accidentally saying the president’s name instead.  It’s not as if this president never produced his long form birth certificate and college transcripts (well, let’s forget the college transcripts, SAT scores, everything else–not relevant, NOTHING TO SEE!).  

It’s not as if the opposition party, suddenly controlling both chambers of our bicameral Congress, vowed to block everything the twice popularly elected president proposed and denied him his constitutional right to nominate a candidate to replace a deceased Supreme Court justice.   It’s not as if this president’s successor (if any) will take pains to dismantle every deal this guy makes, void every law he has passed, remove his name from history, except as the biggest loser to ever serve in the office.   That’s how you shatter norms.

Sorry, dad, I know you tried to raise me better, but it’s simply too tempting, up to my nostrils in this swirling, stinking Koch-manufactured sewage, to simply say: fuck you, Barr  (and the fucking McConnell you rode in on).

 

 

Common Sense

It was often said, in reply to the concern of people who resisted what they felt to be unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment, mass secret government intrusions on their privacy after the attack on 9/11, “if you have nothing to hide– pull down your pants and spread your cheeks!”   An innocent person is not worried about their privacy!

Anybody who had nothing to hide, these patriots insisted, would not hesitate to let the government see all of their telephone calls, emails, be probed and x-rayed at airports, etc.  That was the common reply to the increasingly indiscriminate surveillance all Americans have been subjected to since the cheerful, freedom-loving days of Vice President Dick Cheney.  Cheney famously kept a huge safe, large enough to imprison a full grown human, in his office.   Dark side, indeed.

Presidents sometimes brag, as Obama did, about having the most “transparent” administration in history.   In the case of Obama, smooth, smart and apparently decent in many ways, I had a strong impulse to bash his face when he paused in his comedy routine at his final Correspondent’s Club Dinner to sincerely thank the American corporate press for being his “partners” in “transparency” which he correctly said is essential to educating citizens of a true democracy.   Obama was many things, but his administration was famously non-transparent and he broke all records for using the death sentence carrying 1918 Espionage Act against journalists and their sources.

Naturally, Trump nonchalantly boasts about being the most transparent president, “probably in history.”   He has said many times that he had no problem speaking to Mueller, or anybody else, that everything should be out in the open, including (at first) the fully unredacted Mueller report.   These remarks are but a tiny sliver of the thousands of documented lies he has publicly told as president.

Lately, on the written instruction of his wartime consigliere, “avid bagpiper” [1] Bill Barr, the religious Catholic believer in presidential supremacy and God’s law, Trump invokes a vague, ridiculously broad blanket privilege that the court is likely to strike down (in a year, or two).   The president and his lawyers. led by America’s attorney general, now assert a vast and limitless “protective presidential privilege” over all testimony and documents anyone in his administration, at any time, may have spoken or produced. 

Clearly, Mr. Trump has nothing to hide.   

Which is why he has already released all his financials, after the longest tax audit in US history (nothing but the best for Mr. Trump) in spite of the over-the-top coughing of Koch-funded Tea Party winner/Trump dead-ender Mick Mulvaney when Trump began talking about it on camera recently.

Trump has nothing to hide, which is why he is totally transparent, all the time.   Mueller exonerated him, no do-overs, losers.

All one needs to do is apply Boof Kavanaugh’s mother’s judicial maxim:   Use common sense.  what smells OK and what stinks? [2]

 

 

[1]    according to Wikipedia, where I went to have a long at his extreme religious orientation (no mention)  source

[2]  “Oh, God, Boof, not again with the beer flatulence!!!!   We have to change your diet!!!!”