Friday Talking Points -- Trump INDICATED!
Donald Trump's typographical mistakes were already legendary. But up until now, none have truly been as historic as the one he posted immediately after a New York grand jury indicted a former United States president for the first time in American history [bizarre capitalization in original, of course]: "These Thugs and Radical Left Monsters have just INDICATED the 45th President of the United States of America...." Um, well, yes... the grand jury just indicated that Donald Trump was worthy of indictment.
Buffoonery aside, this is indeed a historic moment. Because the New York grand jury went first, the relative merits of the Stormy Daniels case will be endlessly dissected and discussed in the coming days, but as of this writing nobody outside of the grand jury or the prosecutor's office is fully aware of either: (1) the exact charges against Trump (said to be on the order of 30 separate charges, but no details have been released yet), or: (2) the evidence which convinced both the prosecutor and the grand jury that Donald Trump had not just broken the law but that this could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Nobody knows -- and we won't even begin to know until next Tuesday at the earliest. That's when rumor has it that Trump will surrender himself in New York City to get his mug shot and fingerprints taken and to face arraignment for the charges. At that point the charges will become publicly known, but the full weight of the evidence against Trump will not be revealed to the public before the case actually comes to court. This is an important fact to keep in mind -- whether you think Trump is guilty as sin or pure as the driven snow. Nobody really knows at this point, beyond pure bias and speculation.
The American judicial system is built on the foundation that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. So right up to the time when the jury announces their decision, Donald Trump is still to be considered innocent. But that presumption of innocence cuts both ways -- a fact which (checks the news...) pretty much every single Republican under the sun has conveniently forgotten. Because they are mightily trying to flip the whole thing on its head and declare the prosecutor guilty of all sorts of nefarious things. All without a shred of proof of any wrongdoing, and all without knowing the slightest detail about the evidence presented against Trump to the grand jury. It's all a "witch hunt" they say, and dire threats of weaponizing the House of Representatives against this prosecutor have already been issued.
The House, of course, has zero jurisdiction over the New York prosecutor's office -- in fact, the House has zero jurisdiction over anyone anywhere. It is a legislative body. It does not enforce laws -- that is an executive and/or a judicial duty. But that fact isn't going to stop them from trying, obviously. It's amazing how Republicans conveniently forget pretty much every single thing they've ever said about the sanctity of "federalism" and "states' rights" and the 10th Amendment, when one of their own is in the dock. The GOP's hypocrisy is already breathtaking, and we're just getting started.
We're all going to get tired of hearing the word "unprecedented," that much seems certain. But during the lull while the political press anxiously awaited the indictment to drop, the "Retropolis" column at the Washington Post dug up one interesting precedent from the annals of American history. Ulysses S. Grant -- while he was president -- was arrested and booked at a police station. He was essentially fined as well, although the article ends with: "He didn't show up for court." Here's how it all unfolded:
In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant was arrested at the corner of 13th and M streets NW in Washington. This was not a high crime, but it was -- at least theoretically speaking -- a misdemeanor.
The man who led the North to victory in the Civil War was busted for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage.
. . .
That policeman [the "Only Policeman Who Ever Arrested a President"] was William H. West, a Black man who had fought in the Civil War.
. . .
The police had been receiving complaints of speeding carriages. After a mother and child were run over and badly injured, Officer West was dispatched to investigate. As West spoke to witnesses, another group of speeding carriages headed toward him -- including one driven by the president of the United States.
"Policeman West held up his hand for them to stop," the story said. "Grant was driving a pair of fast steppers and he had some difficulty in halting them, but this he managed to do."
Grant was a bit testy.
"Well, officer," he said, "what do you want with me?"
West replied: "I want to inform you, Mr. President, that you are violating the law by speeding along this street. Your fast driving, sir, has set the example for a lot of other gentlemen."
The president apologized, promised it wouldn’t happen again and galloped away.
But Grant could not curb his need for speed.
The next evening, West was patrolling at the corner of 13th and M streets when the president came barreling through again, this time speeding so fast that it took him an entire block to stop.
Now Grant was cocky and had a "smile on his face," the Star reported, that made him look like "a schoolboy who had been caught in a guilty act by a teacher."
He said, "Do you think, officer, that I was violating the speed laws?"
"I do, Mr. President," West said.
Grant had an excuse for his speeding, not unlike one no doubt being given somewhere right now: He had no idea he had been going so fast.
West was sympathetic but firm.
"I am very sorry, Mr. President, to have to do it," he said, "for you are the chief of the nation, and I am nothing but a policeman, but duty is duty, sir, and I will have to place you under arrest."
Which he then did. The president "and several of his speeding buddies" were hauled down to the local police station. Grant was forced to put up 20 dollars as bail ("collateral"). A trial was held the next day, and heavy fines were handed down -- but the president skipped out on court and apparently nothing else was ever done about it.
In essence, he got a speeding ticket and blew it off.
The story wasn't made public until the policeman retired and spoke to a Washington newspaper in 1908. So you should take all the quotes in it with a grain of salt, as the exchange was likely nowhere near as refined as the cop's memory reported. But this incident is historical fact (the D.C. police chief in 2008 confirmed the story to the Post) -- a sitting president has indeed previously been arrested and booked down at the local police station. Trump won't be the first -- or the category will have to be defined more carefully (Trump will be: "the first former president to be charged with a crime and booked") to be strictly accurate.
Historical footnotes aside, where does this leave us all? Awaiting Trump's surrender, which could take on the circuslike atmosphere of O. J. Simpson in his white Bronco (one Trump advisor even predicted it will be like "O. J. Simpson on steroids," in fact). Will there be news helicopters tracking the president from his Florida resort to the local airport, and then from the destination airport to the court building in New York City? That seems pretty probable. Will we have breathless minute-by-minute news coverage while it happens? I would bet on it. Will Trump milk it for all it is worth, politically-speaking? Most assuredly. Will Trump actually give a little speech and/or press conference on the steps of the courthouse either before or after entering the building? One can only hope....
Whatever happens, like pretty much all things Trump, it is bound to be a spectacle that boosts his television ratings. Which is really all he cares about anyway, when you get right down to it.
We wrote earlier this week (the day before the indictment happened, in fact) that we thought it would be a much better thing for all concerned if the Georgia prosecutor who is looking into possible election tampering and racketeering charges against Trump made the first move. That would live up to the historic occasion of seeing Trump surrender himself to the authorities. But perhaps Karma knows what it is doing -- the New York case is notable not for abuse of presidential powers or possibly seditionist actions which spurred an attempted insurrection, but instead because it is all so tawdry and downright sleazy. Which is perhaps fitting, for Donald Trump's first criminal charges, when you think about it. After all, tawdry and sleazy are words that already spring to mind when you think of Donald Trump, even before any indictments.
Republicans are trying to paint the prosecution as one that would never have happened to any other politician, but that's pretty laughable. Just imagine for one moment what a Republican prosecutor in Arkansas would have done if he or she had solid evidence in hand that Bill Clinton had done exactly the same thing Trump is accused of -- paid hush money to an adult film star/director and then illegally fudged the books to cover it up. Think Bubba would have been indicted? If you answer anything but: "Most definitely!" to that question, then you must be too young to remember the 1990s. Because Clinton would indeed have been tried in court in a heartbeat if that were true. Hey, at least the Democrats didn't impeach Trump over the porn star payoff....
Whether it was Georgia or New York, it is going to help that the first prosecution of Trump will happen at a state level. Joe Biden's Justice Department and the federal government in general had nothing to do with it. This is a distinction the Republicans are trying to gloss over, but for the time being New York state is the only government involved in the case. If federal charges do appear (from the federal grand juries looking at Trump's refusal to comply with a subpoena / retention of classified and other presidential documents, as well as Trump's possible criminality for the January 6th insurrection), they may wind up being tried in court faster than either state can move, however. The federal criminal judicial system may move quicker, in other words, because of how it normally operates.
And lest we forget, these are just the criminal cases against Trump. There are plenty of others in various stages of completion:
In addition to criminal charges, Mr. Trump faces several civil lawsuits. New York's attorney general, Letitia James, is suing the former president for "grossly" and fraudulently inflating the value of his real estate assets. Three of Mr. Trump's adult children are named in the suit as well. A group of Capitol Police officers and Democratic legislators are suing the former president, arguing that his actions on Jan. 6 incited the mob that caused them physical and emotional harm. E. Jean Carroll, a writer who accused Mr. Trump of raping her, is suing the former president for defamation. Mr. Trump denies the charges.
In other words, there will be plenty of extravaganzas in the "Mr. Trump Goes To Court" circus, no matter which one happens to be in the center ring at the moment. In fact, the rape/defamation case will almost certainly be heard in court before any of the others.
What everyone is waiting to see now is how Trump's most fervent followers will react. Will there be violence? Will it be confined to New York or will it be widespread? It's not just Trump but many other Republicans who are whipping up the MAGA base into a fever pitch right now, and as we've already seen, bad things can happen as a direct result. Trump is waiting until Tuesday to surrender himself, which leaves a lot of time for people to travel to protest. Then again, Trump himself predicted he'd be indicted weeks ago, and the protests that did spring up on the Tuesday he (wrongly) identified were pretty small and pathetic, so nobody really knows.
We are indeed entering uncharted territory, and we will be traversing that territory for years to come, most likely. Criminal trials are a lot speedier than civil trials, but Trump is an absolute master at delaying judicial proceedings. This will all coincide with Trump's third presidential campaign, and (being uncharted territory) nobody has any idea what it will do for him politically. Will even the Republican base get tired of a candidate with more baggage than a 747? Or will they rally around him to the very end? He's already gotten a bump in attention from the whole indictment drama, and he has once again managed to get virtually every Republican out there -- including (astonishingly) all the Republicans who are running against him for the presidential nomination -- to parrot his own talking points and fervently defend him. At least for the moment, it is definitely still Trump's Republican Party.
This has the feeling of a sprint, since we're all now breathlessly awaiting next Tuesday, but it's going to be a marathon in the end. It may be multiple marathons running simultaneously, if other indictments follow the New York one. Because there are multiple grand juries still out there who might just (we can't resist) INDICATE that Trump is worthy of indictment. Buckle up, everyone, this rollercoaster ride's going to be one for the ages!
We have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out before we get to the main one this week.
The first goes to Senator Bernie Sanders, for raking the former head of Starbucks over the congressional coals for his and his company's Union-busting activities. Howard Schultz once considered running for president as a Democrat, but ironically the only ones in the committee room who were sympathetic to him were Republicans.
And Senator Tim Kaine certainly deserves to be congratulated for his years-long persistence in getting the Senate to vote to repeal two of the "Authorizations for the Use of Military Force" the United States has used to justify foreign wars. The Senate vote was 66-30, showing how much bipartisan support Kaine finally achieved for his bill. He's been trying to get this passed for over a decade now, which shows some admirable persistence, you've got to admit.
But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week goes to every elected Democrat in Michigan's state government. This week, the governor signed into law a measure that overturned the so-called "right-to-work" law that Republicans had passed back in 2012. Michigan is an important symbolic state to Unions, so this was a victory that was especially sweet. And it was the first state-level right-to-work law overturned by any state legislature since 1965, which is impressive indeed.
This is not an isolated legislative incident, either. Here's what else Michigan Democrats have been up to, since they captured the "trifecta" of control of both houses in the legislature and the governor's office last year (for the first time in 40 years):
On March 22, the state legislature passed an eight-bill gun safety package. A repeal of the state's 1931 ban on abortion has also been adopted. On March 19, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law bills protecting the rights of LGBTQ citizens.
Meanwhile, the legislature is rushing to expand election protections by instituting automatic voter registration, reinstating the voting rights of ex-felons, criminalizing the harassment of election workers and broadening access to early voting.
Michigan cannot yet be counted as a reliable blue state, but they're working on it. Michigan Democrats have been planning their strategy for a long time, in fact. They got a ballot initiative passed in 2018 which turned over control of the state's redistricting to a nonpartisan commission, who then got rid of all the Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. It didn't hurt that Michigan's Republican Party went pretty far down the rabbit hole of election denialism after 2020 and managed to nominate the most extreme candidates imaginable in 2022.
Democrats in Michigan know that their control of government isn't guaranteed in the future, so they are busily fixing all the damage to their state's laws that Republicans have created through decades of control.
And from all accounts, they're doing a bang-up job of it.
Which is why all of Michigan's elected Democrats deserve this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Keep up the good work!
[Congratulate Governor Gretchen Whitmer on her official contact page, or you can look up individual legislators on the official legislature pages, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]
This is rather obscure -- an aide to a governor -- but it merits the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award for how abhorrent it was.
We have stopped even mentioning the endless series of school shootings and other mass shootings here for the most part, because we essentially gave up hope that anything is going to change any time soon (at least on a national level). So we didn't comment this week on the most recent atrocity, a school shooting in Kentucky where the police identified the shooter as transgender. But others did.
Feelings run strong after these events, obviously. And it was downright disgusting to see Republicans cheerfully engage in something they regularly denounce Democrats for doing -- slapping some "identity politics" on the whole event to paint all transgender people as dangerous lunatics. They never do so when (as is hundreds of times more common) the shooter is a White cis male, of course, that almost goes without saying.
Democrats and other gun-control supporters pushed back on this in various ways. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do so. And then there's a downright abhorrent way to do so:
The press secretary for Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs of Arizona has resigned after sharing a meme some interpreted as suggesting that guns be drawn against people who are transphobic.
Josselyn Berry faced heavy backlash from Republicans after posting a GIF of actor Gena Rowlands in the movie Gloria brandishing two guns. "Us when we see transphobes," the caption read.
This is mere "hours after" the news of the shooting broke.
Words escape us. This is so wrong it's just patently obvious, at least to us. Which is why Josselyn Berry is hereby awarded this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And "disappointing" doesn't even begin to cover it, we should add.
[Since she has resigned, Josselyn Berry is now a private citizen and it is our standing policy not to provide contact information for such persons.]
Volume 700 (3/31/23)
We're going to pause for two moments here, before we get started. The first is to note that volume number. Yes, yes, we know -- it really should be "Issue" instead of "Volume," but whatever. Just as we enjoy seeing our car's odometer turn over a big milestone, we have to say even we are astonished that we've managed to crank out 700 of these columns over the past two decades!
And our second pause is somber rather than celebratory, because we have to note the passing of Mark Russell, a political satirist and piano player who will not soon be forgotten. He is no doubt now playing a star-spangled piano at the hotel bar in Political Heaven. Requiescat In Pace.
With that out of the way, let's get right to the talking points. As you've probably guessed, there really is only one subject this week that everyone's talking about....
Blind justice
Let's start on the high road, shall we? We'll have some gutter-level snark later, we promise, but let's start with something more noble.
"In America, no one is above the law. That is how it should be. Justice is supposed to be blind -- if you do the crime, you should do the time no matter who you are. No matter how powerful, no matter how wealthy, no matter what you have made of yourself in the rest of your life, if you break the law you should be treated equally by the courts. And until we all get to see the evidence that the grand jury saw, nobody has any real clue about Donald Trump's innocence or guilt. But to say he never should have been charged is just wrong -- because in America, no one should ever be above the law, period."
The restrained approach
Representative Ruben Gallego, who is running to unseat Senator Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona, took a very sober and restrained approach to commenting on Trump's situation:
In America we believe in the rule of law. We should wait to hear from the grand jury before jumping to conclusions.
We never had to, before
Representative Adam Schiff made an excellent point we wish more Democrats would make -- yes, this is an unprecedented situation, but the reason for that is that we never had to deal with someone like Donald Trump before.
The indictment of a former president is unprecedented. But so too is the unlawful conduct in which Trump has been engaged. A nation of laws must hold the rich and powerful accountable, even when they hold high office. Especially when they do. To do otherwise is not democracy.
Unlawful political interference
Republicans are infamous for almost always being guilty of projection. What they loudly complain about in others is usually what they are guilty of themselves, or possibly even actively engaged in at that very moment. The district attorney's office in New York has been sent several letters by House committee chairs, demanding all sorts of documents in the case against Donald Trump. This is beyond improper -- it is actually a crime in and of itself. These Republicans are actively trying to obstruct justice by demanding information that cannot be publicly revealed at this point. Which the D.A.'s office pointed out, in a harshly-worded response after the indictment:
As you are no doubt aware, former President Trump has directed harsh invective against District Attorney Bragg and threatened on social media that his arrest or indictment in New York may unleash "death & destruction." As Committee Chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system.... Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the Office's investigation... is politically motivated. We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.
Lock him up!
And then there's the rampant hypocrisy of Republicans drowning in crocodile tears over (gasp!) Democrats doing precisely what they have been screaming at the tops of their lungs for, ever since Trump appeared on the political scene.
"I hear many Republicans are outraged over what they call 'the politicization of justice' or denouncing any sort of criminal case being brought against a Republican politician in general. Which is just too ironically funny for words, really, when you consider how much political hay they've made over the phrase 'Lock her up!' Remember that? They've called for pretty much every prominent Democrat around to be 'locked up,' in fact: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden (just for good measure), Adam Schiff, Robert Mueller, Dr. Anthony Fauci... I mean, it's a long list. They've been screaming about it for years, folks. And now we're supposed to believe them when they say that justice should never be politicized in any way, shape, or form? Puh-leeze."
Keep trying, he'll get it eventually...
Of course, we can't pass up the chance to get just a wee bit snarky...
"Maybe by the second or third time he is criminally charged, he'll finally learn how to spell 'indict'... keep trying, Lil' Donny, you'll get it eventually!"
Stormy chimes in
But the hands-down best response of them all (at least, so far) comes from adult film actress/director Stormy Daniels herself -- the eye of the storm, one might call her. In an interview with The Times of London, Stormy let her own snark flag fly [trigger warning: explicit and possibly-offensive language ahead]:
I am fully aware of the insanity of it being a porn star. But it's also poetic; this pussy grabbed back.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
My question is, will he be convicated or vindicted
These past few weeks, with generic file photos of Trump looking angry at the top of every news feed and on the front page of every paper, reminds me of how blessedly peaceful the past three years have been for a politics news junkie like me. For four years I had to avoid every Trump story, every Trump quote, and turn the channel every time his voice was about to sound on the radio news. Then in 2021 that went away, and life returned to normal. But now... HE'S BACKKK!!!
And I'm back to skipping past his quotes, turning the page or clicking past a screen with his image, and generally wishing he'd just go away forever.
And now you tell me it's going to be a Trump Marathon of endless "news" stories and pictures of him for months if not years. Gah. Gah squared. Where can I go? How can I hide?
Joshua[1],
Ha!
Count me in with the vindicted crew. Heh.
John[2],
I have a few fun music-related Facebook pages you might like to get lost in. Oh, wait ...
Of course, you'll definitely have to stay away from THIS place for the duration. :(
Seriously, this all seems pretty non-serious to me.
[trigger warning: explicit and possibly offensive language ahead]:
Are you fucking kidding me CW or was this solely tongue-in-cheek?
My God I truly despise this kind of shit:
Y’all (I’m talking to you, Kick and poet) have a right to free speech — but you do NOT have the right to not be offended!
Put on yer big-person pants, go watch some Jordan Peterson (8:02) and you, too, may have a chance at escaping perpetual delicate snowflake mess.*smh*
This hand-wringing virtue-signaling self-wetting over words…just words
are nothing more than the greedy Democratic ownership-classes excuse for not actually solving problems.
What?
Actually, Caddy, I thought that, ah, disclaimer was pretty ridiculous, too. :)
Re: MIDOW. I couldn't agree more. In fact, since the Democrats took over both the legislature and the governor was re-elected, they've been quite busy passing several laws to protect and improve the lives of their citizens.
I'm surprised that Chris didn't acknowledge the New York prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, with AT LEAST an honorable mention for MIDDOW. He took a lot of heat - from the liberal chattering class - when he seemingly terminated the Trump investigation of his predecessor. How many of those same shriekers have written or offered an on-air apology?
My reaction to the indictment has been a strange feeling of peacefulness, as if a storm had cleared. I wonder if anyone else has had the same feeling.
The feeling I get is that this indictment was a bad idea.
CW
Because the New York grand jury went first, the relative merits of the Stormy Daniels case will be endlessly dissected and discussed in the coming days, but as of this writing nobody outside of the grand jury or the prosecutor's office is fully aware of either: (1) the exact charges against Trump (said to be on the order of 30 separate charges, but no details have been released yet), or: (2) the evidence which convinced both the prosecutor and the grand jury that Donald Trump had not just broken the law but that this could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Well, we actually do already know that David Pecker was the last witness to speak to the Grand Jury after having also been the first, and that points to the high probability that there's likely to be a conspiracy-type charge against Trump because it was the National Enquirer/AMI whom Daniels was originally going to sell her story, and Pecker notified Cohen and also spoke with Trump directly about it. Trump conspired with AMI/Pecker to "catch and kill" more than one affair, and AMI was found by the FEC to have violated campaign finance laws but entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) on September 20, 2018, with Trump's DOJ:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download
In Exhibit A to the letter (link above), AMI/Pecker admits to knowingly violating the law in concert with the Trump campaign, and the "catch and kill" agreement regarding Karen McDougal is described in detail... the Playboy model with whom Trump had an affair.
Nobody knows -- and we won't even begin to know until next Tuesday at the earliest.
Oh, look! It's not even Tuesday yet, but we already do actually know some stuff regarding the facts of Trump's conspiracy with Pecker/AMI. :)
So, to recap: Trump can blame Biden and Merrick Garland et alia until the cows come home, but it was Trump's DOJ who was all over the Trump campaign's conspiracy to break the law in order to influence the 2016 election.
CW
Whatever happens, like pretty much all things Trump, it is bound to be a spectacle that boosts his television ratings. Which is really all he cares about anyway, when you get right down to it.
You seem to have overlooked Trump's insatiable greed and lust for money. :)
CW
Joe Biden's Justice Department and the federal government in general had nothing to do with it.
I wouldn't say "nothing" to do with it since it was Trump's DOJ that actually entered into the NPA with AMI/Pecker who along with Cohen and his tape recorder and Pecker and his NPA are solid evidence that proves that the Trump campaign had conspired with AMI/Pecker to "catch and kill" stories regarding Trump's adultery.
Apparently, it isn't a crime to pay off multiple porn stars. The crime is the conspiracy to knowingly cover it up and the commission of "cooking the books" -- a.k.a. falsifying business records, which Rudy Giuliani (conveniently) already admitted to Sean Hannity on live television:
*
Since the "president repaid it" in multiple checks and then "cooked the books" (and likely didn't pay taxes on it either, yet another crime), I would wager there are multiple counts of fraud for each instance of fraudulent remuneration to Michael Cohen. These type of fraud charges and tax avoidance are the same type of charges for which the Trump Organization have already been criminally convicted by Alvin Bragg on 17 counts... every single count he brought against them.
Michael Cohen has already served time in jail for doing that -- at the Direction of "Individual 1" a.k.a. Donald Trump -- and AMI/Pecker entered into the non-prosecution agreement with Trump's DOJ and admitted knowingly violating the law in concert with Trump's campaign.
@caddy,
what on earth are you talking about?
@liz,
mistake or not, it had to happen. kinda like the impeachments; perhaps not the wisest political move, but legally necessary.
JL
CW
Then again, Trump himself predicted he'd be indicted weeks ago, and the protests that did spring up on the Tuesday he (wrongly) identified were pretty small and pathetic, so nobody really knows.
He also stated to reporters aboard his plane after his campaign rally in Waco, Texas:
*
He also screamed (in all caps) his praise for the grand jury on his rip-off of Twitter.
When his campaign was asked to comment about Trump's claim that the case had been dropped, his campaign spokesman responded:
*
These "Lock Her Up" hypocrites are effing hysterical. They should seriously stop believing the confirmation bias bullshit propaganda served to them on Righty-rube TV.
MtnCaddy
6
Are you fucking kidding me CW or was this solely tongue-in-cheek?
You seem to have gotten triggered... proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the author was quite right and on target to post that conscientious warning, you know, being that his column is broadcast to the entire world and not just you personally.
My God I truly despise this kind of shit:
Y’all (I’m talking to you, Kick and poet)...
I'm not God (obviously) and certainly cannot speak for Him, but I can report from widely distributed evidence that you've directly violated His Commandment Three. As for poet, I obviously will not speak on his behalf because he might smite me.
... have a right to free speech — but you do NOT have the right to not be offended!
I am most definitely never not free to not be offended any time I choose to be not affronted... and amen. That goes for poet too, though my saying so might surely get me stoned.
So, to recap: You seem both triggered and stoned. :)
mistake or not, it had to happen. kinda like the impeachments; perhaps not the wisest political move, but legally necessary.
to what end?
As it has been explained to me, (1) he's going to be "arrested for what looks like a possible presidential campaign finance violation that federal prosecutors passed on years ago" and (2) a local DA has no jurisdiction when it comes to questions about the financing of a presidential campaign.
Are they going to get him for falsifying business records as the hush money reimbursement to one of his lawyers was listed as a 'legal fee'? This is a misdemeanor "not a felony, even if Trump himself can be deemed responsible for the bookkeeping entry. Which would appear to be in error only in the use of the word fee rather than expense."
[9]
Thanks, Elizabeth. I hoped that I wasn’t the only Weigantian that sees it this way.
[11] italyrusty you make an excellent point! Bragg proved to have the balls to be the first to jump. It doesn’t matter if Trump is convicated or vindicted because now the dam of indictments hath been cracked and yea verily, the wicked shall yet reap what they have sown.
[14]
If there’s one thing I can count on it’s Kick doing some digging so as to edify Weigantia. Well done — I for one appreciate that you save us from inevitably wanting to look this up! I’ll therefore give you a “pass” on not going full Monty and including the subject matter: like Sunday Evening Canadian** Rock n Roll Appreciation Night. This makes it convenient to go back and KNOW which kickass song that she turned me on to.
**and other nationalities.
[17]
nypoet I am in the Bill Maher School of Political Incorrectness. (8:23)**
While this episode is about “Presentism” among the “Woke” crowd, you will get the gist of where I’m coming from and why I hate hate HATE snowflake sensitivity…
For the record, the reason that I get so bent outta shape is that Snowflakism as well as Wokeism are the Democratic Donor Classes’ distraction to the plebes (as likewise abortion is a distraction to the OTHER plebes.)
So — don’t even TRY to convince me that the Democratic Ownership Class is any LESS greedy than the Repug Donor Class.
Whythehell do you think that we got stuck with William “Triangulation” Clinton for eight years?
And after good house nigger Obama’s “Hope and Change” bullshit flopped so badly that Murica elected a New York Douchebag in 2016?
Yep. I wrote nigger.
Why do black people call themselves nigger? It’s because they decided to adopt that hateful nomenclature as a way to TRIUMPH over it. One Brother informed me that they’re saying n-i-g-g-a which stands for,
Never
Ignorant,
Getting
Goals
Accomplished.
He also indicated (the obvious) that if’n you ain’t black the respectful thing to do is to ASK if they’re cool with it.
In contrast many white Libtards will soil themselves over “the n-word” but not be willing to put their money where their mouth is regarding “making things right.”
[20]
Agreed!
IMO Political correctness is a bullshit excuse for Libtards not putting one’s money where their mouth is. It’s okay for you and/or I to be offended. We are wearing our “big person pants.”
[21]
to what end?
To the end of making it clear that we are a nation of LAWS and not MEN! That the former (or any) so-called Leader of the Free World does NOT get to break our laws/break our Constitutional Republic.
Yes, this means that even if Trump beats this apparently** weak case — and even if no one ELSE indicts Trump (the longest of shots now that Alvin Bragg hath pulleth the trigger) — it will DISSUADE future Presidents from doing likewise. Either our laws apply to everyone or else they are a sham.
*Apparently weak…but no one knows what charges and corresponding evidence the Grand Jury based it’s vote for indictments (30 is the “word on the street”)
@caddy [23-24],
there's a difference between something that is triggering to the terminally sensitive and something that is legit offensive. i must admit your somewhat gratuitous use of the n-word may traverse a bit out of the first column and into the second, but if i'm alone in that perception i'll let it be.
JL
[26]
Elizabeth, it’s like the two impeachments: no one expected that Senate Repugs would actually do the right thing by our country. But a Democratic Party’s NOT at least trying would indicate that Ralph Nadar was right: Tweedle Dee versus Tweedle Dum…
Say hello to the new Boss
Same as the old Boss…
[20]
…so hell yeah: Libtard hypocrisy/virtue signaling/talkin the talk and NOT walking the walk triggers me, duh.
From a trusted source:
"Alvin Bragg, who has downgraded most felony cases in his jurisdiction — which is experiencing a crime wave — to misdemeanors, now treats armed robbery as a misdemeanor. But falsifying a business record is suddenly a felony when it involves Trump?
"Absurd. But not surprising."
Small quibble, nothing more.
The shooting was in Tennessee not Kentucky.
Elizabeth Miller
21
to what end?
To the end where no one is above the law.
As it has been explained to me, (1) he's going to be "arrested for what looks like a possible presidential campaign finance violation that federal prosecutors passed on years ago"
Somebody explained it to you incorrectly. A grand jury has indicated he should be indicted on multiple counts of forging business record... "cooking the books"... likely one charge per fraudulent business item. Federal prosecutors in Trump's DOJ did not pass on it years ago, they convicted Trump's fixer Michael Cohen for doing it at the direction of "Individual 1," and they entered into a non-prosecution agreement with David Pecker/AMI. You can read the NPA in its entirety at the link I provided above.
Trump fired his own appointee at SDNY, Geoffrey Berman, but not before Barr applied pressure on him to take steps politically favorable to "Individual 1"... Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/politics/geoffrey-berman-book-doj-nyt/index.html
Obviously, Trump firing the prosecutor he knew was investigating his fixer and himself for crimes is the definition of obstruction of justice, but I digress. Also, it was special counsel, Robert Mueller, who referred the entire matter to SDNY.
(2) a local DA has no jurisdiction when it comes to questions about the financing of a presidential campaign.
He/she dang sure does when the financing involves falsifying multiple business records in violation of state law. This is a highly documented case wherein it appears to me they're going after Trump for conspiring with Cohen and Pecker/AMI. It appears to me there was a conspiracy that included Weisselberg, Cohen, Trump in how to gross up the payments to conceal them and also a conspiracy with Pecker, Trump, and Cohen and the Trump campaign to "catch and kill" the Trump commissions of adultery. Does any of that violate state laws? Yes, multiple of them, which we'll find out when indictment is unsealed. I imagine this case is not a whole lot different than the 17 counts that Alvin Bragg has already secured criminal convictions on ALL counts against companies of the Trump Organization.
Are they going to get him for falsifying business records as the hush money reimbursement to one of his lawyers was listed as a 'legal fee'? This is a misdemeanor "not a felony, even if Trump himself can be deemed responsible for the bookkeeping entry. Which would appear to be in error only in the use of the word fee rather than expense."
This is a rather simplistic view of the conspiracy that was going on among multiple persons who have already gone to jail and/or entered into non-prosecution agreements for committing these crimes. If David Pecker is the first and last witness that was presented to the grand jury, it seems highly unlikely these charges don't somehow involve that conspiracy among them to "catch and kill" the stories of Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford a.k.a. Stormy Daniels.
Equal justice under the law.
It got tiresome hearing the armchair pundits proclaiming how incredibly difficult it would be for Alvin Bragg to obtain criminal convictions against the companies of the Trump Organization. Meanwhile, he slam dunked all 17 of them, and the Trump Organization is now criminally convicted on every single charge, while Trump's CFO sits in prison on Rikers in New York, New York.
And now, a musical interlude... I may have posted this one a time or two before over the years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrUfJW1JGk
Kick,
More from my source whose political analyses can be described in many ways but, ah, incorrect ain't one of them:
"It is amusing to note that so many folks who claim they just love love love democracy and Trump is just finished finished finished are suspiciously insistent on finding some way, any way, of blocking him from running again.
"Better to defeat him than disqualify him. Which is supposedly easy, right? According to various echo chambers. Er, but for the fact that he’s ahead of Joe Biden in most non-partisan polls."
MtnCaddy
24
He also indicated (the obvious) that if’n you ain’t black the respectful thing to do is to ASK if they’re cool with it.
Now you've gone and made some sense when at first glance you were demonstrably hiding it. Let's connect some dots here and apply the logic you already know. Why do you suppose CW applied his "trigger disclaimer" to that quote of Stormy Daniels? Actual question... not to be confused with rhetorical.
It seems to me CW likely because Stormy Daniels referred to herself as "this pussy" as a callback to Trump referring to women allowing him to grab them. She's used the term in place of "woman," thus conceivably having the effect to some people (not me) as characterizing women as such. Kind of like referring to all black persons as that word which they've reclaimed that you've quite rightly explained you should ask them if it's okay for you to use. He didn't so much ask if it was okay, but he did give a conscientious warning that he was going to post something that might offend some women... and maybe even some men out there who wouldn't take kindly to having their woman referred to as such. And here you go getting offended when you're not even a woman. You are offended because of a dang conscientious disclaimer; go figure.
In contrast many white Libtards will soil themselves over “the n-word” but not be willing to put their money where their mouth is regarding “making things right.”
You're overthinking it. :)
So, to recap: Nothing wrong with notifying somebody first before you hurl something that could be construed as offensive to some of them... like you just described in your example. I actually don't use that word you're gleefully tossing around in the same manner I don't hurl the term "skinhead" to every baldheaded white man I speak with.
Kick,
How does that old saying go, again?
Let me think ... oh, yeah ... a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich".
Apparently, that saying originated in ... wait for it, New York.
Heh.
Try not to get your hopes up too high, okay ... I'm just sayin ... :)
nypoet22
27
i must admit your somewhat gratuitous use of the n-word may traverse a bit out of the first column and into the second, but if i'm alone in that perception i'll let it be.
You are not alone. Caddy knows this even if not on a conscious level because... as he already explained:
*
So not all that different than CW being conscientious of his myriad of readers.
So, to recap: All men are pricks, all bald white men are skinheads, but all women are most assuredly not lady parts. Just kidding. But y'all get my point. :)
MtnCaddy
29
…so hell yeah: Libtard hypocrisy/virtue signaling/talkin the talk and NOT walking the walk triggers me, duh.
You're overthinking it and also making yourself sound like one of them snowflakes you mentioned. Good news is your own posts reveal you're not a total lost cause. Yes, I am teasing with you... while at the same time being totally serious. I connected your own dots for you. I don't do that for just anybody. :)
Elizabeth Miller
30
From a trusted source:
"Alvin Bragg, who has downgraded most felony cases in his jurisdiction — which is experiencing a crime wave — to misdemeanors, now treats armed robbery as a misdemeanor.
That's bollocks. Your "trusted source" is attempting to undercut the validity of the charges contained in the indictment against Trump while at the same time portraying Democrats as being weak on crime. Why on Earth would you trust a shitty source like that? Alvin Bragg's jurisdiction is Manhattan, and they are most definitely not experiencing a crime wave.
But falsifying a business record is suddenly a felony when it involves Trump?
You will notice your so-called "trusted source" asks questions in Fox Newsian fashion. Why would you trust a source like that?
In answer to your source's stupid question: No, falsifying a business record isn't suddenly a felony when it involves Trump. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York State law (New York Penal Code Section 175.10) and also isn't new or novel in regards to Trump or anyone else and is prosecuted by DAs across New York State on a regular basis.
You and your source need some examples? No problem.
The link contains a list of falsifying business records in the first degree, felony cases prosecuted in New York.
You will note that the New York statute doesn't require that the falsifying of business records has to involve the commission of another "state" crime. You will also note that Michael Cohen has been prosecuted by Trump's DOJ and gone to jail in commission of a crime and David Pecker/AMI has already entered into a non-prosecution agreement wherein he admits to knowingly committing crimes.
I would also wager I know your source. You've posted his opinion pieces before. :)
Elizabeth Miller
34
More from my source whose political analyses can be described in many ways but, ah, incorrect ain't one of them:
Yes, your source is definitely incorrect, which is obviously why he asks his readers stupid questions rather than posting the actual New York statute. And you fell for that hot air of his like a lead balloon.
"It is amusing to note that so many folks who claim they just love love love democracy and Trump is just finished finished finished are suspiciously insistent on finding some way, any way, of blocking him from running again.
That's beyond an effing ignorant statement from your shitty source who obviously doesn't "love love love democracy" enough -- or give his readers enough credit that they're not all effing ignorant as to the laws outlined in simple English regarding that democracy -- particularly in regards to the Manhattan DA's case and language expressly contained in the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution has three requirements of a candidate for POTUS.
The president must:
(1) Be a natural-born citizen of the United States,
(2) Be at least 35 years old, and
(3) Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
Anyone who meets these requirements can declare their candidacy for president. Trump's got all three of those covered so don't let the opinions of stupid people fool you that Poor Donald will not be able to run if he's indicted by Alvin Bragg for his crimesd. It's patently absurd.
Trump is already obviously running, and there's only one thing that could potentially stop him, and that is contained in the 14th Amendment -- known for it's declaration of equal protection under the law -- passed during Reconstruction in order to address discrimination toward non-white citizens of America. Contained in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is language that states that any person who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution can be barred from holding office if they participated in an insurrection against the United States or helped enemies thereof.
How Section 3 of the 14th would be applied to Trump is debateable, but the utter asinine assertion that Trump is being kept from running is laughable on its face.
"Better to defeat him than disqualify him...
Disqualifying him would be near impossible; this isn't even a question to those who know the three qualifications to run for POTUS.
... Which is supposedly easy, right?
Another stupid question. We have a divided America wherein it isn't easy for anyone to win the presidency... regardless of who they are.
According to various echo chambers. Er, but for the fact that he’s ahead of Joe Biden in most non-partisan polls."
That's actually total bullshit also. :)
Kick, you are SUCH a smarty pants. :-)
Elizabeth Miller
36
How does that old saying go, again?
Let me think ... oh, yeah ... a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich".
That's the rumor; however, apparently a prosecutor cannot get a grand jury to indict a former president since only one of them has actually ever done it (so far).
Apparently, that saying originated in ... wait for it, New York.
Yes. Chief Judge Soloman Wachtler had wanted to scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments in New York. Meanwhile, over on American Pravda lately, former president Donald Trump has nothing but love for the grand jury system... but I digress.
FUN FACT: Sol Wachtler got indicted in 1993 for extortion and other crimes. You see, Sol was having an affair with a prominent Republican fund-raiser, Joy Silverman. After his affair ended, Wachtler began a series of threatening phone calls and letters (documents case) to Silverman which included a sexually explicit note addressed to her 14-year-old daughter, including a condom enclosed (hard evidence... no pun intended).
He pleaded guilty to making threats to kidnap Silverman's daughter and was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison.
So, to recap: Another typical Republican scumbag adulterer, and they locked him up.
Elizabeth Miller
37
Try not to get your hopes up too high, okay ... I'm just sayin ... :)
Donald Trump has every right to defend himself... also outlined in the United States Constitution. Rather than actually keeping his Orange Blowhole shut and acting like a man, Trump moans like a pathetic victim: "If they can do this to me, they can do it to you."
No shit, Dopey Donald! If anyone in America funnels money through a law firm (admitted by your lawyer on live television) and "cooks the books" to hide it, they too could be indicted for crimes.
I cannot for the life of me deduce why these Righty MAGA rubes think this ginormous windbag is a strong leader when all he ever does is whine like an effing toddler. If he wants to grab a pussy, he should take his fat arms and wee small hands get ahold of himself; he's the biggest pussy I've ever seen.
[35]
[38]
Kick, I’m glad that you divined what I was somewhat inartfully getting at. I think I am not overthinking this but rather overreacting to this/CW’s warning because I just bleeping hate hate hate political correctness and safe spaces and censorship of (possibly) offensive material to (possibly) some people.
So fine, Ms. Smarty Pants — I suppose that CW’s warning did in fact trigger me, whatever. :)
some of them... like you just described in your example. I actually don't use that word you're gleefully tossing around in the same manner I don't hurl the term "skinhead" to every baldheaded white man I speak with.
So, to recap: All men are pricks, all bald white men are skinheads, but all women are most assuredly not lady parts. Just kidding. But y'all get my point. :)
One other thing…how the hell you know that I’m a bald white guy?
That kind of weirds me out.
Yuh, it may be tough love, Kick…but any love is good love…
:D
Hey Elizabeth what’s with this “my source” malarkey? Why don’t you not only identify it but do Weigantia the courtesy of providing a summary along with right properly formatted link? Whaddup with that?
I’m guessing it’s one of the Wall Street Journal’s lesser lights, as I’ve seen a lot of that since in those pages since Thursday.
BTW ain’t nothing like some Justice for Trump At Last Action to really juice up the Comments Section, eh? Waaay better than douchebag Michale. Who has — Shocked. Shocked, I tell you — wisely gone into exile (self deported?) in light of the GQP’s Insane Clown Posse.
[47]
…I meant to say a right properly formatted link.
Caddy, how many times must I tell you about my source?
Unless you've sought and received permission from everyone (impossible on multiple levels), you will be offending someone if you use vile, offensive language. There is no good reason to use the N-word and there are plenty of black people who are offended by black people using it.
Indicating Fat Donny is NOT a bad idea. He did the crime. He has publicly admitted it. His administration prosecuted and imprisoned his partner in crime. It's just too obvious too be ignored.
It's not as if indicating the orange one is somehow indicative of America going off a cliff. We did that a while back.
Indeed.
I mean about America already having made the plunge off the cliff. Ahem.
[51]
Elizabeth, every time !
I suggest you do what everyone else here does,
1- ID your source of what your source says is important enough to post about it,
2- Provide the link, hello?
[56]
I trust that you’re referring to America buying into Reaganomics forty-some years ago.
There is no link, Caddy ... just an email address and I ain't gonna give it to you!
Besides, why do I need to provide you with all of the details about how I get information to form my opinions. This is a freakin' blog, for crissakes not the Spanish inquistion!
You know what I will do? I'll start providing the links to various pieces from a wide variety of news outlets that I may or may not agree with, in whole or in part. That way you can form you own opinions using your own critical thinking skills. How's that?
And, I will provide you with this, again ...
William Bradley
Political Analyst, former presidential campaign advisor and special advisor to the governor -- "Let there be light."
William Bradley is an award-winning columnist and investigative reporter and a frequent political advisor. He has been a senior advisor, special advisor and special consultant to presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, governors and senators. Senior advisor with Arianna Huffington for Shadow Conventions 2000, veteran of a half-dozen U.S. presidential campaigns, he has advised leading parties in Mexico (PRI, PRD), Japan (LDP), Germany (Greens), and Russia (DemRussia). His New West Notes former blog and longtime newsletter has a 90%-plus forecasting record. The Post featured columnist and former chief political writer for LA Weekly (then the nation's largest metropolitan weekly), California Business, Golden State Report, and Sacramento News & Review has held posts in federal, state, and local government, co-founded Campuses United Against Apartheid and a newspaper in California's capital, dabbled in Hollywood, worked with Silicon Valley's marketing guru, garnered a Clio. An Eagle Scout and black belt, he has also written for a score of major international publications, hosted a national radio show on SiriusXM, and has been an AFP stringer and on-air analyst and consultant for Al Jazeera. A summa cum laude Berkeley grad and decorated Navy vet who has traveled in 50 countries, Bradley is USC Annenberg's first senior fellow for online journalism, longtime national AltWeekly Awards judge and has been a National Merit Scholar, VISTA Volunteer, fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and Royal Society of Arts, UC regents fellow, UN special attaché, and UCLA, Naval War College, Stanford and Oxford postgrad. Dubbed an "All-Pro" operative by Campaigns & Elections, mainly for his presidential campaign work, during his twenties, the American Legion life member is a permanent student of the dynamics of history who enjoys the cavalcade of events in these dark and fascinating times.
I consider myself to be a very luck girl to be on his email list. Which is the primary intervention in keeping me on the straight and narrow as I try to navigate through the wonderful world of (geo)politics. :)
Caddy,
I trust that you’re referring to America buying into Reaganomics forty-some years ago.
That's a pretty good starting point for understanding what the Republican cult of economic failure is all about.
Re: [40] Kick's critique of Bradley's statements and [61] Bradley's stellar-seeming resume.
Between the two I find Kick's critique far more convincing than Bradley's commentary. Bradley comes off as deliberately deceptive of his more credulous readers with rhetorical questions like "But falsifying a business record is suddenly a felony when it involves Trump?" I wonder what other aspects of the US legal system Bradley is equally ignorant of?
And who brags about being an Eagle Scout on their grown-up resume?
This is a freakin' blog, for crissakes not the Spanish inquistion!
The Spanish Inquisition????
or....
The Spanish Inquisition?
John[63],
Jealousy never gets you very far.
Btw, John, like Kick, you haven't read the little bit that I quoted from Bradley very closely, obviously.
Sorry, maybe I left this part out...
"Alvin Bragg, who has downgraded most felony cases in his jurisdiction — which is experiencing a crime wave — to misdemeanors, now treats armed robbery as a misdemeanor. But falsifying a business record is suddenly a felony when it involves Trump?
There ... that's a little more context. Next time I shall quote him in full! :)
Hey, John and Kick ... d'ya know any good non-partisan polls? Heh.
Elizabeth, on [67] looking back to [30] & [40]:
When I searched online for "Bragg downgraded felonies to misdemeanors" I got immediate hits from the following news sources:
Daily Mail
NY Post
Fox News
Washington Times
NY Sun
Local Today
Just The News
In short, last year the entire right-wing media complex adopted the language, word for word, that Bragg "downgraded felonies to misdemeanors" with the implication that he is totally soft on crime, and possibly even Woke, or Marxist, who knows?
When I finally found an article that actually reported on Bragg's policies rather than clutching its pearls at the so-called 'crime wave' that rolled over New York City this year thanks to Bragg (as Kick notes - it didn't, actually), it was from that old neoliberal rag the NY Times.
The article (link below) notes, in complex detail for intelligent and discerning readers, that reducing felonies to misdemeanors in selected cases and circumstances has the net effect of reducing crime in the future. That's because people are not being put away so often for minor crimes deemed felonies during panicky periods in past years, and so are not learning more criminal habits in jail, and likewise are not losing their ability to get jobs after jail due to a felony conviction.
Not just in New York City, but other cities to the south and west, downgrading *some* felony categories has become 'best practice' in law enforcement - because it works.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/opinion/crime-new-york-district-attorney.html
Now it ought to be obvious that white-collar crime, felonies and all, have nothing to do with Bragg's initiatives about petty street crime. That Trump's crimes are at the felony level, in Bragg's judgment regarding the written laws about business practice, is completely unrelated to his prosecution directives about a theft by a criminal who had a weapon on his person, but never displayed it during the crime but who would nevertheless have been charged with 'armed robbery' rather than 'robbery'.
If Mr. Bradley is as smart as his resume implies, one would think he would know this, and refuse to make false comparisons. But his use of the exact phrase used by all the right-wing echo chamber suggests that he is just a manipulative mouthpiece, not the thoughtful political consultant that he sells himself as.
John,
I supplied William Bradley's bio because Caddy forgot who "my source" was.
I posted some quotes from his last emailed piece for the sake of starting a discussion amongst us Weigantians, not to invite denigration of his credentials or intelligence.
But, civil discussion has never really been much of a hallmark of this place, has it ... :(
good talk.
and now for something completely different...
It's not exactly a music lover's paradise around here, either. But, that was a very lovely selection, Joshua!
I'm in a bit of a mood this early morning ...
Michael Martin Murphy - Wildfire
... I always revert back to the seventies.
England Dan and John Ford Coley - I'd Really Love To See You Tonight
Eagles - I Can't Tell You Why
Boz Scaggs - Love Look What You've Done To Me
The Doors - Touch Me
The Association - Cherish
Al Green - Let's Stay Together
Marvin Gaye - Sexual Healing
Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes - If You Don't Know Me By Now
James Blunt - Good-bye My Lover (Live)
And, here's a PRiSM tune for New York City!
Liz,
Lets start with [30].
Alvin Bragg, who has downgraded most felony cases in his jurisdiction
Technically true but misleading. Bragg has downgraded 52% of felonies to misdemeanors vs 40% as the high of his predecessor.
which is experiencing a crime wave
New York is experiencing a crime wave but no more so than the rest of the country. You also have to realize that per capita New York is a freakishly safe city and even with a crime wave is safer than all but a small handful of cities in the rest of the country, like single digit handful...
now treats armed robbery as a misdemeanor.
Not true, he treats armed robbery as misdemeanor only in cases where there was no threat of actually using the weapon. He later back tracked and any use of a gun in a commercial armed robbery would be a felony even if the gun did not work, was unloaded or the gun was a convincing fake.
But falsifying a business record is suddenly a felony when it involves Trump?
In NY falsifying a business record in the first degree is a class E felony…
Now the fun part [61]
What a strange rabbit hole that was. This William Bradley has a truly amazing bio. One I would think would not only have a wikipedia page but one with considerable scroll down on it. He is not on wikipedia…
Matter of fact I have yet to find confirmation of just about anything contained in this bio. I cannot find his name connected with any presidential, gubernatorial or senatorial campaign. Shadow Conventions 2000 does have a Bill Bradley, the senator of New Jersey who ran against Gore in the presidential primary, but no William. And this is reoccurring, Bill Bradley, the Senator, had an SiriusXM radio show but nothing comes up from William. There is a William Bradley New West Notes blog and it’s very pretty but has no content. Like ZERO stories or posts. LA Weekly does not have a chief political writer named William Bradley but it does have two guest writers: Bill Bradley with a bunch of stories and a William Bradley with just two. William Bradley comes up with nothing for California Business and Golden State Report. The Sacramento News & Review does have a writer by the name of Bill Bradley but not William. I cannot find proof he ever received a Clio. Wikipedia has a list of all the fellows of the Royal Geographical Society, it does not contain William Bradley. There is a William Bradley connected with the Royal Society of Arts but he died in 1857. Nothing comes up with his name for UCLA, Naval War College, Stanford or Oxford. No connection to Al Jazeera. And so on and so forth. I mean I would expect some stuff to not show up especially if it predated the internet but nothing? At all? Dam! This guy has fluffed his bio on the squirt of sugar syrup to cotton candy level. A true George Santos of political commentating. Don’t believe me? Validate his bio yourself. The only thing there is proof of is he had a column on Huffington Post and his bio there is the only place any of his claims show up in search.
On the other hand I did find out about Will H. Bradley, an American Art Nouveau artist. As I’m a huge fan of the Art Nouveau period of art and had not heard of him, that was a treat. So, at least there’s that…
MtnCaddy
45
I think I am not overthinking this but rather overreacting to this/CW’s warning because I just bleeping hate hate hate political correctness and safe spaces and censorship of (possibly) offensive material to (possibly) some people.
So you're saying you need a safe space from safe spaces.
Heh.
So fine, Ms. Smarty Pants — I suppose that CW’s warning did in fact trigger me, whatever. :)
It's only words... just like the other words.
One other thing…how the hell you know that I’m a bald white guy?
Your language, your age, and I pay attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTunqv1Xt4
Saw a Ron DeSantis function and could not help but notice how comically phony this jerk is becoming increasingly by the day. His surname is actually pronounced "Dee Santis," but he began referring to himself "Duh Santis" because he found out it polls better with voters better than "Dee Santis" *laughs*
"Dee Santis" has also apparently been practicing in the mirror and has really got those Trump hand gestures down cold now. That's how stupid he thinks voters are, that they won't notice he changed the pronunciation of his own surname and is literally now copying Donald Trump's hand gestures.
I wonder if there is a video on YouTube I could use to illustrate this? *be right back*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKIe7sb9QWQ
"Dee Santis" is now even wearing the Trumpian orange clown makeup!
So if this keeps up apace, we're not going to be able to tell the Donald and Ronald clowns apart from each other since "Dee Santis" is slowly morphing into a Donald-like clown clone... we'll just call the old clown Donald and the new clown McDonald.
Ronald McDonald.
Problem solved. :)
DeSantis is just pissed he got his ass handed to him by a mouse...
Bashi[84],
Your comment here and your hanging on every syllable of my Bradley quote and yet not looking at it as a whole essentially misses both the point of the quote AND of my posting it, small that it is ... but never mind.
And, why are you spending so much time on his bio? I only posted it because Caddy forgot who he was. Senator Bill Bradley is his cousin, btw ... ;)
As for the rest of your, ah, analysis of his bio???, do you know what a bio is? A bio mentions a lot of things that are no longer active because, wait for it, he has retired and now only shares his 'columns' with those of us who are lucky enough to be on his email list because we have been reading his stuff for decades. Grow up.
For your information, the bio from Huffington Post that I presented here is not at all exhaustive.
Liz,
Your Bradley quote is misleading and wrong. Why should I take him seriously if he is bullshitting? As for William Bradley, you posted his name, I google to see who the guy is and why should I take him seriously. He comes up with nothing. At all. That is incredibility suspicious. The internet rarely forgets. As I said, some of his bio could be pre-internet but all? Doubtful.
Grow up
How Don Harris of you...
You know Bashi, it's amusing to watch someone spend so much time going after a journalist and political analyst just because you happen to disagree with his analysis. Isn't that what you call living in an echo chamber?
Stop wasting your time and mine.
Liz,
Oh please prey tell what echo chamber I am in?
He is right or he is wrong. A quick google of Alvin Bragg demonstrates he is wrong. Why is he pushing that story?
I search absolutely everything and everyone. I want to know who it is, what they think, where they purvey their ideas, et. This usually takes minutes. Your guy basically does not exist. That is interesting in it's self. Much more so than any political discussion. I was not going after him, I was trying to find his existence at all.
Stop wasting your time and mine.
Isn't that intrinsically why we are all here: to waste time?
Apparently.
nypoet22
64
Heh. :)
Elizabeth Miller
70
I supplied William Bradley's bio because Caddy forgot who "my source" was.
Caddy didn't forget who your source was; you entirely failed to name or cite your source. The only thing Caddy may have forgotten was your peculiar tendency to rely heavily on the asinine opinion of a single source to the dang near exclusion of all others. Anyone who questions your source is then summarily dismissed by you as someone who didn't understand his (usually) weak-ass opinions that echo right-wingnut talking points and MAGA propaganda.
John M gave you solid excellent answer, and your response was to opine he was jealous... which is fathoms beyond ridiculous. You then (as per your usual) responded by questioning his ability to understand your source's elementary opinions. Mr. Bradley's commentaries aren't the least bit complicated to comprehend. No one is confused by him... with the possible exception of yourself. It seems frequently to fly totally over your head that Bradley is doing nothing more than parroting right-wing fantastical bullshit.
I posted some quotes from his last emailed piece for the sake of starting a discussion amongst us Weigantians, not to invite denigration of his credentials or intelligence.
Ah, the Elizabeth Miller standard "muscular debate" whining diatribe. I regret to inform you (again) that muscular debate/discussions regarding someone's/anyone's weak-ass opinion will just naturally frequently have a tendency to inspire denigration of the author's credentials and/or intelligence. That's how debate/discussion works.
But, civil discussion has never really been much of a hallmark of this place, has it ... :(
Us not agreeing with Bradley's typical prattling nonsense is not the equivalent of being uncivilized. We gave you muscular debate, and you claimed we didn't understand your source! I got news for you; Bradley isn't complicated... quite the opposite, in point of fact.
BashiBazouk
87
DeSantis is just pissed he got his ass handed to him by a mouse...
Yep! They slipped him a Mickey. :)
And, why are you spending so much time on his bio? I only posted it because Caddy forgot who he was. Senator Bill Bradley is his cousin, btw ... ;)
Not his first cousin:
From Bill Bradley's speech in Crystal City, 1999
My father never went to college. At 16, he quit high-school and went to work for the railroad to support his widowed mother and two sisters, and later got a job here at the local bank, "shining pennies" as he called it. He worked his way up assistant cashier, cashier, manager, vice-president - until eventually he was the majority shareholder.
Two sisters who would not have passed on the Bradley name and no sons of the mother with Warren or anyone else.
I'm getting closer to Bill's full family tree...
Bashi
Contact him, Bashi. See if he responds.
https://williambradleynewwestnotes.wordpress.com/contact/
I thought I made myself clear about this, Kick. He is retired from public writing. You must be on his email list to receive his current analyses.
I'll tell ya what ... I'll post pertinent excerpts here, from time to time, when I deem it to be necessary. :)
Happy 700th ... er, 20 something Birthday, FTP!!! :-)