Scandal Fatigue

It’s impossible to follow every dirty scheme the party of Trump is involved in. The sheer number of sickening abuses of power is mind-numbing. So you check out, for the sake of your mental health, and focus on not going insane. That is part of Trump’s plan, to emotionally wear out everybody who is not a full-time diehard hater or well-rewarded loyalist. I offer a quick take on one easy to follow scandal:

Story breaks that Louis DeJoy, Trump donor and head of campaign finance for the RNC and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. until his recent appointment as Postmaster General of the UPSS, allegedly pressured his employees to donate to the Republican party and later reimbursed them. This is illegal. Trump is asked by a reporter whether DeJoy should face prosecution. Trump answers, with some cuteness, that if DeJoy did what he’s accused of that maybe he should be investigated.

The president then points out, falsely, that DeJoy was appointed by a bipartisan commission. For the record: the “bipartisan commission” claim is an outright lie, since Trump appointed them all, 4 Republicans and 2 Democrats, ensuring 4-2 votes and Trump “wins” on everything relating to the Postal Service. Google that “bipartisan” claim and you will learn:

Trump also praised DeJoy on Monday and emphasized that the postmaster general was appointed by a “bipartisan commission,” rather than by the president. While DeJoy was appointed by the USPS board of governors—which is made up of four Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by Trump—his selection as postmaster general has recently become a source of controversy. DeJoy was initially suggested by USPS board chair Robert Duncan, who holds leadership roles in multiple GOP super PACs, rather than the independent executive search firm hired to find a new postmaster general, Duncan has testified to Congress, and former board member David Williams testified that he resigned from the board partially due to DeJoy’s appointment, believing he was not qualified for the position. 


Recalling that Mitch McConnell had blocked numerous Obama appointments, you follow that thread of the story and learn, to nobody’s surprise:

When the President took office three and a half years ago, he inherited an empty Board of Governors. For years, Congress had refused to confirm any of Barack Obama’s nominees to the Board, due to infighting on both sides of the aisle [note Time’s stunning even-handedness in not pinning the refusal to hold confirmation hearings on McConnell — ed] . Trump was therefore handed the opportunity to fill the Board of Governors with a majority of members—many of whom are business executives with ties to the Republican party—who shared his cost-cutting vision.

“I had never heard of anything like it in the U.S. government,” says James Sauber, chief of staff for the National Association of Letter Carriers, of the empty Board of Governors. “It was pretty extraordinary.”


Here’s how a fundamentally lawless, unethical man like McConnell makes something like this work (and it’s also been done with federal judgeships and at the Federal Election Commission– which hasn’t had a quorum for years — and other government oversight agencies)

There are nine slots allotted for the USPS Board of Governors. They function in a capacity akin a corporate board of a company, collectively appointing a Postmaster General and Deputy Postmaster General. The board is designed to be bipartisan by nature. While a sitting President appoints members when vacancies arise, no more than five members can be from the same party, and all nominees are subject to Congressional confirmation. Members are also elected to serve for seven year terms, ensuring that their tenure lasts through at least one Presidential administration.

By 2014, there were fewer than six members on the Board of Governors, which meant the body lacked a quorum and was unable to perform key functions. But while Obama nominated seven people to fill those vacancies, according to a 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service, none received a vote in the Senate [note again the restraint of Time in not stating what is also true, and perhaps more to the point: many Obama nominees were never allowed a hearing or vote by McConnell — ed. (1)].


No president can appoint more than five of the nine from his own party. Not a problem. Instead of nine, Trump appoints SIX, four from his party, two from the enemy party. Easy. Now he can win every vote 4-2. Nothing to it, if you have no scruples about anything but winning, your party’s as shameless as you are and your top law enforcement officer is a modern day Roy Cohn.

[1] According to the article, Bernie Sanders apparently blocked two nominees who favored privatizing the Postal Service.

Election Fraud: evidence or no evidence?

Why isn’t this “high profile” case front page news? It turns on the demonstrable falsity of Trump’s repeatedly debunked claims of massive voter fraud. These false claims are being actively spread by Putin, as well, according to US intelligence reports.

Trump v. Boockvar is the federal lawsuit brought by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee to prevent the Democratic Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the Election Boards of all 67 Pennsylvania counties from making voting easier and safer during a pandemic. The aim of the lawsuit is clearly to suppress the vote in a state whose twenty Electoral College votes Trump won by less than one percent (0.7%) in 2016. The judge has allowed the case to proceed without evidence of voter fraud being presented by the president’s lawyers (who were ordered to produce evidence by August 14th)

A sitting president and his party’s national committee are using campaign donations to fund an expensive federal lawsuit, forcing the massive expenditure of tax payer funds by a state/defendant trying to make ends meet during a pandemic.

Doesn’t seem quite right, does it?

Here’s the recent NY Times report about how Trump uses campaign funds to finance his many presidential legal battles.

Here’s the skinny on the flood of lawsuits Trump is having paid for by donors.

Incidentally, Trump’s claim in the case — that mail-in voting:

… denies any procedural visibility to candidates, political parties, and the public in general, thereby jeopardizing the free and fair public elections guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. The most recent election conducted in this Commonwealth and the public reaction to it demonstrate the harm caused by Defendants’ unconstitutional infringements of Plaintiffs’ rights. The continued enforcement of arbitrary and disparate policies and procedures regarding poll watcher access and ballot return and counting poses a severe threat to the credibility and integrity of, and public confidence in, Pennsylvania’s elections.

full amended complaint here

is not only unsupported by evidence (in apparent contempt of a judge’s order) but these claims are identical to Kremlin talking points about the upcoming US election [1]. How a federal lawsuit is allowed to go forward, unsupported by evidence of any kind, in spite of the unambiguous order of the federal judge that Plaintiff’s submit evidence or STATE THAT THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE, is a modern American judicial mystery. The failure of the news media to report on it is a modern American media mystery.

Judge to Trump and Putin: put up or shut up!

The judge in the case, J. Nicholas Ranjan, a Trump appointee, ruled almost a month ago that Plaintiffs must submit evidence of the massive fraud they are claiming will take place if Pennsylvania’s voting modifications for the pandemic are allowed to go forward or STATE THAT THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

Judge Ranjan didn’t necessarily want to make this order against his benefactors, Trump and the RNC, he granted defendants’ motions asking for that order. Trump and the RNC plainly didn’t have good enough arguments for the judge to allow him to deny the motion and let them continue the case without a shred of evidence.

A federal lawsuit where the incumbent president and his massively wealthy party are using campaign funds to fuel a suit against a state to prevent the expansion of voting in a presidential election, during a pandemic — based on MASSIVE FRAUD they have produced no evidence of — eh, nothing to see here.



A bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security alleges that Russian state actors are seeking to “amplify criticisms of vote-by-mail” in the U.S. election, with specific critiques echoing those made by President Trump and his allies.


A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released in August found “irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling” in the 2016 election, concluding that Russia and China are both working to “disrupt our democracy, exacerbate societal divisions, and sow doubts about the legitimacy and integrity of our institutions, our electoral process and our republic.” National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director William Evanina said in a statement that Russia is actively working to “denigrate” former Vice President Joe Biden and “boost” Trump’s candidacy


Thinking About Thinking

I’ve noticed a mysterious little flurry of viewers to a post I wrote two years ago about Hannah Arendt and her view of thinking and creativity. It is lack of imagination, Arendt asserted, and the dumb obedience this crabbed view of the world produces, that leads men, seeking to escape loneliness (among other things) to join movements in which they may be required to function as monsters, carry out unthinkably inhuman orders. They simply accept the rationale they are given, join a movement and execute the wishes of a Leader who may or may not be wise, capable or decent. A leader who may, in fact, be Adolf Hitler.

Adolf Eichmann, portrayed to this day as one of history’s most infamous monsters, was, as observed by Arendt during his sensational, important trial in Jerusalem, an unremarkable man of modest intellectual gifts who insisted it had been his duty to obey the laws of the new order in Germany. He spoke in cliches, often repeated stock Nazi phrases and was incapable of imagining that a regime that made mass murder ordinary, normal and lawful could have anything wrong with it. The several psychiatrists who examined him prior to his criminal trial in Jerusalem concluded he was not a “man obsessed with a dangerous and insatiable urge to kill” or a “perverted, sadistic personality” (as the prosecutor later wrote of Eichmann — and as the ad for the current Netflix offering about him suggests).

Half a dozen psychiatrists had certified him as “normal” — “More normal than I am after having examined him,” one of them was said to have exclaimed, while another had found that his whole psychological outlook, his attitude toward his wife and children, mother and father, brothers, sisters, and friends, was “not only normal but most desirable”– and finally the minister who had paid regular visits to him in prison after the Supreme Court had finished hearing his appeal reassured everybody by declaring Eichmann to be “a man with very positive ideas.”

(Eichmann in Jerusalem, pp. 25-26)

It was Eichmann’s utter lack of imagination, his willingness to believe what his superiors told him, his ambition to succeed and advance in his career, that made Eichmann the hardworking cog in the Nazi killing machine that he became. He was not troubled by conscience because what he was doing he had been legally ordered to do, he had only been doing his job. He literally could not imagine refusing to do his legal duty. A refusal to do it would have resulted in his own demotion, imprisonment, probably death — all unimaginably harsh and self-destructive outcomes. End of inquiry. Arendt was internationally vilified for “humanizing” this monster in her 1963 masterpiece. I’m with Hannah, she gives us a crucial understanding in her deep portrait of an otherwise ordinary enabler of evil.

In law school students are drilled in thinking through and articulating both sides of an argument, imagining as many avenues of legal attack to the client’s position as possible in order to defend against them. Rigorous thinking means sometimes considering ideas you might find repellant, overcoming the reflex to simply cast them out with a grunt of disgust. A mark of the agile mind, someone said (F. Scott Fitzgerald?) is being able to keep two contradictory thoughts in mind at the same time. We live in the instant information age, so here you go:

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” [1]

We are not trained to be nimble, creative thinkers — we are trained to be earners and consumers, as well as reflexive moralists who do not dwell on crazy-making nuance. From birth, here in the United States, we are exposed to hour upon hour of commercial advertisements, teaching us what to buy. By the time we are in kindergarten we can recite countless commercial tag lines and sing (at least when I was a kid and every product had a catchy little tune attached) dozens of jingles. I often lament that I can easily sing the entire “Veep” (a lemon lime soft drink, circa 1961) jingle perfectly but can’t recite a single line of Shakespeare or the Bible accurately.

In a sense it’s not anyone’s fault that we are a largely superficial, stubbornly opinionated culture, we’ve become this way by design, for the massive profit of the beneficiaries of this commercialized state of affairs. Imagining a fundamentally different way of life is almost impossible, given the pervasiveness of the one being sold to us 24/7 and now, literally so: carried on smart devices in our pockets, with little notification sounds to remind us to look at them. We tend to latch on to whatever suits our views, gravitating to items that support our confirmation bias.

Every moral and political issue is reduced to an oversimplified false duality — yes or no. If you critique an extractive, highly polluting consumer society that may well be destroying the earth for short-term profit it is easy to see what you are: a Communist, a soul-dead enemy of freedom and liberty. There is no other frame to think about such things here, though a desperately needed one is evolving with things like The Green New Deal.

Thinking about crowds carrying torches, united in some cause, often a violent one, we can set them in virtually any epoch in history. The rationale of the march is always similar — we are in pain, we are afraid, we’re angry, we are the victims, we are going to kill the people who are victimizing us! It’s true that once we have murdered the evil bastards our miserable life remains pretty much the same, the anger, pain and fair have not vanished — but that just means we haven’t killed enough of them. It is the triumph of action without thought, without imagination, without Reason, that leads to every mass catastrophe (not caused by “Acts of God”) that humans have ever fallen into.

It’s tempting, of course, to make comparisons between a guy like Eichmann and some of the political actors of our time. What “belief system” must one accept to justify the caging of children forcefully ripped from their mothers’ arms? It’s tempting to compare the thousands in perfect solidarity at a Nuremberg rally to the crowds today at certain political rallies, the fascist goon squads of 1930s Germany to a gang of men who take up arms to protest the tyranny of mandated mask wearing to slow the spread of a deadly pandemic. These types can imagine only one version of the world, as they believe it is, with powerful, evil cannibal child molesters trying to gain the upper hand, doing whatever they can to destroy our cherished way of life.

These crowds live, as we all do today, in echo chambers that magnify whatever bias they had last night, the one they wake up with today. A few guys are getting incredibly rich running these massive echo chambers while the rest of us face ever greater peril from endlessly magnified real problems that require deep thought, serious discussion and ingenious solutions, problems that are reduced to idiotic black or white, red or blue, yay or nay.

Thinkers are easily killed by violent men of action, men with guns, ropes, bombs. Violent, unthinking emotion, time after time, prevails over reflection, understanding, mercy, wisdom. That doesn’t make the attempt to understand, to be merciful, foolish. Understanding, and imagining a better future, is the only chance we have against the hoards who increasingly believe that politically powerful cannibal child rapists are coming to get all of the little white, Christian children in America and that only one man, an admittedly flawed vessel– but one secretly filled with Christ’s love — can save them. Decency prevails, when indecency becomes impossible not to see. The unimaginable stink of the thing can finally wake dozing souls to say: enough, goddamn it.

But we have to think. We actually have to think.

[1] F. Scott Fitzgerald, 1936, yo. A year one would have done well to keep this test in mind.

De-escalation is for Losers, according to Winners

If he wasn’t so destructive it would be tempting to feel sorry for him. That can be said for many angry, tyrannical, violent people, and it applies to our president, of course. Raised in a home where his ruthless and lawless father taught him that only “winning” matters, he never really had a chance not to be warped the way he was. Still, I’m not tempted to feel sorry for him. Not every abuse victim grows up to double down on abuse as an adult. Those who insist on their right to abuse others deserve our scorn.

This type sees every conflict as a zero-sum game to be won or shamefully lost. My father, an infant victim of vicious abuse, came to see the world this way, but deeply regretted the life-crimping idiocy of that view as he was dying.

Only in sports, where a neutral party keeps score, enforces rules of fair play and the team with the higher score beats the other team, does winning and losing in the strict sense actually come into play. The team that loses is not regarded by the victors as “losers” unless the winning team is composed of immature jerks. The rest of the uses of “winner” and “loser” are metaphorical and used to justify exploitative behavior by zero-sum thinkers, people too stunted to see the world otherwise.

At the same time, of course, there are winners and losers in every negotiation, victims and beneficiaries of every law. Every time the super-wealthy get another tax break, they win, the public’s ability to pay for programs and maintain infrastructure loses. Every time a court rules that private parties can be as homophobic as they like in conducting their business — a win for homophobes, a bitter day for homosexuals and their friends. Whenever an unarmed person is killed by police and an investigation determines the killing was justifiable– somebody wins and the family of the dead person (and society at large) loses again– and has their noses rubbed in their “loss”. There are countless examples of this kind of shit, which some call injustice, but that doesn’t mean the world, or nature, actually works in this smash ’em in the fucking face and WIN! way. It is a construction favored by authoritarian types.

Every sustainable system requires some give and take, cooperation and compromise always leads to better results than zero-sum warfare. Cooperative systems do not view things in absolute terms — that one party wins everything, the other must lose everything. Seeing things as win-win is for LOSERS, according to those who believe the world is composed of winners and losers. Like I wrote at the top, you could feel sorry for this type if they weren’t such ruthless, destructive fuckers.

Their approach to conflict is to dominate. You dominate people who work for you, dominate the news cycle, you dominate protests in the street, dominate the news about the protests in the street. You escalate conflict constantly, to prove your strength (which you always doubt and so must continue to prove). You provoke confrontations to demonstrate that you are capable of using more violence than the other side.

I recognize this idiocy from my senseless childhood battles with an adult who waited almost fifty years to realize he was wrong for framing everything as a war. When we’re upset we need somebody to de-escalate the situation, not enflame things by framing it as another instance of a war we are going to lose. Even as a very young boy, I understood this, was dismayed that my hurt was always quickly recast as irrational anger. If I wasn’t angry before, I was once I was angrily accused of being angry. And so it goes.

It’s now common to call the recasting of legitimate feelings as crazy delusions “gaslighting,” though I always still think of it as reframing. As the Kenosha sheriff said the other day about the people murdered by a 17 year-old from out of state who came to “police” the protest over the Jacob Blake shooting, a kid in illegal possession of a deadly long gun; if they had obeyed the curfew, they wouldn’t have been killed.

See what he did? Now we’re talking about lawbreakers, and maybe they shouldn’t have been killed, but clearly, they shouldn’t have been on the street after dark, openly violating the curfew. Not saying it was their fault, but if they’d obeyed the law they’d still be alive.

When people with a legitimate grievance, protesting legally, are met by a display of unyielding state violence — the outcome is not hard to predict. Maybe instead of “defund the police” the call should be more explicit:


recruit police who are prone to de-escalate, mediate, problem solve, change the culture, send police out to emergencies with people trained in these things. Make violence a last, not first, resort.

When police show up where somebody is upset, acting crazy, if they have no training in how to de-escalate the situation, they will use the only tools they have and it is likely that someone will get hurt. A person who doesn’t need to die will often lose their life in this situation [1].

It’s a very weak definition of “Law and Order” to insist that a naked man acting irrationally is justifiably killed by police who inform him to lay face down on the ground. He disobeyed a direct order: subdue him, choke him, shoot him if necessary.

The police are not trained to de-escalate these situations. They should be. There is nothing weak about someone with the power to kill you instead calming you down, protecting you.


These killings of citizens by police are so common (contrary to Bill Barr’s lying assertion that “only seven” unarmed blacks died at the hands of police last year) that most of them don’t even make the news:

In Arizona, body-camera and surveillance footage released Tuesday show Phoenix police officers held a man on the hot asphalt for nearly six minutes before he died in the back of a police car earlier this month. Twenty-eight-year-old Ramon Timothy Lopez was apprehended on August 4, chased and tackled to the ground by one of the officers. Two others later arrived on the scene. After pressing him into the scorching hot pavement for six minutes, Lopez was lifted and placed in the back of a police car, where he was later found unresponsive. Photographs revealed his skin was covered in burns.


When I mentioned this story to a friend she asked me what the guy had done. I have no idea, but I whatever was doing — how does it justify what they did to him — killing him without a trial by burning him and suffocating him on the hot pavement? Depraved indifference to human life, at best.

Trump and Barr’s proof of massive mail-in voting fraud — or not

Historian Heather Cox Richardson, in her most recent nightly Letter from an American:

He [AG Barr, interviewed on CNN] said that hostile foreign powers could send thousands of mail-in ballots to this year’s election, creating massive voter fraud. When pressed, Barr admitted there was no evidence for such a claim. The U.S. Intelligence Community has no evidence that foreign countries are trying to manipulate mail-in ballots. [Heather, this would be a great place to include a sentence on Republican “evidence” submitted in federal court two weeks ago]

Trump is also continuing his attacks on mail-in votes, insisting they will usher in voter fraud despite their widespread previous use that showed no evidence of fraud, and despite the fact that the president himself votes by mail. [or here]

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee, in compliance with the federal judge’s order, submitted documentary proof of massive vote by mail fraud (or stated that they had no proof) in Trump’s federal case against the State of Pennsylvania, Trump v. Boockvar. Rather than citing Barr’s admission, when pressed by an interviewer, that there is no evidence for such a claim, why not look at the filing by Plaintiffs in the federal court in Western Pennsylvania? Did they submit evidence or, as the judge ordered, did they state they had none, as the judge ordered them to do if they had none?

Americans are simply not being told anything about this “put up or shut up” moment in a federal lawsuit brought to limit voting by a party that has become used to making incendiary claims without evidence of any kind.

On the bright side, we are told today that Mr. Trump will cut through all the Deep State red tape and cure COVID-19 by November 1, or kill countless Americans trying an untested vaccine or vaccines. Either way, victory Donald!

I need to send the facts of Trump v. Boockvar to Bill Moyers and Janine Jackson at FAIR. How can it be that nobody is reporting on Trump’s non-existent evidence of voter fraud in a federal lawsuit about the immediate (and longer term) future of democracy? WTF?


The implausible storyline the president is pushing:

It was so unfair for the mayor of Kenosha to announce that the president was not welcome in his city in the aftermath of a police shooting (in the back, seven times) of an unarmed man getting into a car with his three children, and understandable deadly violence from a peace and president supporting white kid a few nights later. The president!! Not welcome! Unfair for the governor of Wisconsin to second the mayor of Wisconsin’s hostile announcement.

Unfair for people to assume that the police officer who shot the 29 year-old had any kind of bad motive until William Barr fully investigates the shooting — especially the criminal history of the so-called “victim.” Unfair for that decent young white kid Kyle to be attacked by a mob of thugs without having a chance to defend himself. Unfair that the real victims never get the chance to be considered innocent until proven guilty, while the real sick, dangerous, violent criminals are allowed to run free, because of politics and “political correctness.” Unfair that loyal Mike Flynn still faces “justice.”

Unfair that politically motivated hacks keep bringing up the now 185,000 dead Americans allegedly killed by a pandemic that the president has already done everything in anyone’s power to get under control — while “Democrat” governors and mayors of cities like Sodom and Gomorrah whine and try to blame the president, and Jared, and Pence for their own miserable failure. If it’s anybody’s fault, blame Pence! So unfair. Yeah, I know “National Emergency.” Not my fault. Unfair to blame me– it’s the DEMOCRATS, those communist agents who only want to destroy.

Unfair if I lose the upcoming election. There will be a bloodbath if I “lose” and the only way I can is if the election is rigged. If I “lose” the election is rigged. Only a rigged election can cause my hugely successful presidency to be fraudulently ended. Unfair. The Democrats want to make it easier to vote, just so they can point to all those fake ballots and claim they won. Blood on the streets, I promise you, boys and girls, if, God forbid, their evil plan goes forward. Ask my loyal followers, they will not stand for it. Do you think that 600 truck caravan of my supporters pepper spraying and paint-balling Godless traitors in Portland was a joke? He who laughs last, laughs best, losers.

The Extreme Right Never Sleeps — Thousand Year Reich edition

In response to the pandemic, Pennsylvania made it easier for citizens to vote for president without going to polling places in person. In person voting is the preferred method for pandemic deniers to cast their votes, polls show. Pandemic deniers tend to be followers of the president who brilliantly handled the virus already, though his enemies keep snarkily pointing to the 1,000 Americans a day still dying from it, the “six million” who have allegedly been infected to date. A majority of Democratic voters appear to favor mail-in voting. So keeping down the number of votes cast by mail would appear to be the key to Trump winning the 20 electoral college votes of a battleground state he won by a fabulously slim 0.7% mandate in 2016– as well as every other state where it could be close.

Naturally, when they heard Pennsylvania was making it easier for absentee ballots to be cast, Trump and the RNC cried foul, fraud, unconstitutional, illegal, shameful, shameless, bloody murder, coup d’etat etc. They filed a federal lawsuit to stop it on June 29, 2020. You can see the history of this unreported on lawsuit and read all the filings in the case by clicking HERE.

The judge in that case, a Trump appointee named J. Nicholas Ranjan, ordered Plaintiffs to produce evidence of their claims of vote-by-mail fraud or state that they had no evidence. Donald J. Trump for President and the RNC were not deterred, apparently submitting 524 pages of clippings from Breitbart and FOX news, pages containing many accusations of shameless, massive electoral fraud but no proof of anything. After the judge stayed the case until October 5 for Pennsylvania courts to decide state law claims, Trump’s lawyers, on Friday, filed a request for a preliminary injunction– to prevent irreparable harm to the Trump campaign. It reads in part:

Without this relief, Defendants could begin irreversibly commingling potentially illegally cast ballots with other ballots from mid-to-late September 2020. Therefore, to prevent irreparable, constitutional harm to them and their fundamental rights, including without limitation their right to free, fair, and honest elections, and to preserve the ability to obtain an accurate count of the validly cast ballots in the November 3, 3030 General Election if this Court or any other court determines that any such ballots have been illegally cast, Plaintiffs ask this Court to modify the stay in its August 23, 2020 Order (ECF # 410) to provide for limited, preliminary injunctive relief and to modify the stay lifting date from October 5, 2020 to September 14, 2020.

Let’s run a bit of that back, because my “punchline” is embedded in legalese and is easy to miss.

their right to free, fair, and honest elections, and to preserve the ability to obtain an accurate count of the validly cast ballots in the November 3, 3030 General Election

Trump’s motion was submitted with a glaring typo that refers to an election 1,010 years in the future, indicating either sloppiness in preparing the hurried application for emergency relief — or a more sinister intent to retain power by contesting election results for the next thousand years.

The second theory makes sense, from a poetic, non-evidence based point of view. Hitler and the original Nazis often vowed that their racially pure reign would be “The Thousand Year Reich.” Their administration was in power twelve years before self-destructing, as any regime based on hatred, rage, brutality and mass murder ultimately must destroy itself. Still, there are shades of so many of the original Nazi beliefs and techniques among Mr. Trump’s hard core of personally loyal party of the Leader zealots, haters and scofflaws, that it’s no surprise their lawyers made this Freudian slip.

Now if only the national news media would report on this crucial election case! Drawing attention to the president’s Twitter endorsement of truckloads of armed men driving in a caravan to violently confront protesters in Portland is important — but so is this federal case about how actual votes will actually be legally cast in 2020.

Fascists and their followers are capable of anything, have no shame, and they never sleep; neither can the rest of us, until our imperfect but crucial democracy is protected.