Saying the quiet part out loud

Saying the quiet part out loud

Steve Breen

Honestly, it has never been quiet. But now the message is loud and clear: T**** is a fascist. He wants to be a dictator. He has the cult following. He has the ideology. And he is using the language. 

He has really and truly crossed into Hitler territory. At a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire, on Veterans Day no less, he said the following: "We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country." When citizens are equalled to "vermin" that must be destroyed, it gives permission for hatred and violence. This is not ok. 

And he went on: "They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream." He continued: “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.”

It is not simply a narcissist's pathological projection, though it is that. No, this kind of language is horrifying. Historians are sounding the alarm from coast to coast. It matters.

Tom Nichols writing in The Atlantic has reserved the words "T**** is a fascist" until now. Now it's obvious. You can read his thoughts here. 

Many of the rest of us have called it out long ago. I have used the words fascism and fascist on these pages numerous times. My most driect treatment was looking directly at fascism and outlining the parallels of fascist tendencies and T****'s traits. You can read what I published on June 24, 2018: Descending into Darkness. I also wrote Dictatorship 101 back on February 26, 2020.

Here's a video I included in that post; it briefly describes authoritarian strategies and how to resist. It was made five years ago and remains supremely relevant. 

 

T****'s campaign is fine n dandy with authoritarian language, too. In a follow-up statement about his "vermin" comments, Steven Cheung, T**** campaign spokesperson, told the Washington Post, "Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House." In the shocked aftermath, he clarified he comments, stating that he meant to say their “sad, miserable existence" instead of their “entire existence.” So much more comforting!!

And just this week, down in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton showed his true Nazi colors when he filed a lawsuit against a journalism organization who called out Elon Musk and his Nazi sympathizing social media site (By the way, demonizing journalism and controlling mass media is #6 in the list I outlined about fascist tactics in my Descending into Darkness post).

T**** and his gang are embracing fascism and authoritarianism, and very single one of us has the power to  RESIST. Keep your guard up! Our democratic republic is hanging on by a thread. The bottom line is, the only way to preserve it is to vote. Do what you can to help to empower voters, support the candidates you want, and vote. 

Court News: 91 criminal charges and a civil fraud charge still pending

The Civil Fraud Case in NY has been most active. 

This is the bench trial, no jury, in which the judge has already determined that T****, his sons, and his company committed fraud when they grossly inflated property values in order to get better loan terms. The trial is simply to assess for punishment. 

Hunter Biden much?

"The children" were called to testify. Daddy protested much. "Leave my children alone, Engoron!" What, are they four years old? 

Da boys (both co-defendants), scraggly and unshaven, sat smugly in the witness box and proclaimed that "I don't focus on appraisals" and anyway it was the damn rogue accountants who did the deeds. Pesky!

Ivanka (not a defendant) testified that she was "not privy" to Daddy's personal financial statements. 

Prickly testimony

And dad himself testified, in what has been described as meandering and bombastic. Do we expect different? The Washington Post described that, "He alternately appeared boastful and frustrated, proud and irritated, bored and distracted."

Not surprisingly, he did not stick to facts and went off the rails during his testimony, lambasting the court as well as the prosecutor, calling the judge "hostile" and the trial "a scam." Judge Engoron rebuked him strongly and told T****'s lawyers "this is not a political rally" and ordered the attorneys to "control him."

The Toddler-in-Chief still cannot sit still and be quiet for two dang minutes.

Jack Ohman

Jack Ohman

Here is a live-feed version of that day's events from NBC.com.

The prosecution rests

The prosecution wound up its case last week, and now it is the defense's turn. In looking at ABC's live feed of goings-on, it looks like it is not going super well for the defense. For example, one "expert" ended testimony rather abruptly after he contradicted his earlier findings in a report that he authored. 

The continuing saga of the gag order

The gag has been removed by an appellate court, and, unmuzzled, T**** has taken off running. He resumed his attacks on Judge Engoron's clerk, as well as the judge himself, District Attorney Leticia James, and his former attorney Michael Cohen, who testified earlier in the trial. 

The federal January 6 case

This is the case brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith. The indictment charges T**** with four felony charges surrounding the conspiracy to obstruct a free and fair election.

The continuing saga of this gag order

The federal gag order is also under appeal, and a three-judge panel is deciding whether to sustain it or pare it back. They heard arguments Monday morning. They are trying to balance free speech issues as well as trial justice issues. T****'s argument is that the order will stifle free speech regarding campaign issues. The prosectutors do not want him to malign court officers or intimidate witnesses. As it stands, the gag order is narrow already: it keeps him from talking about witnesses, court personnel, and his co-defendents. The court seems to have indicated that they may narrow it the order further. Grrrrr. Why should his status as candidate give him special leeway? To learn more, the Washington Post has analyzed it better than I ever could. 

Motions

Judge Tanya Chutkan has considered a couple motions in recent weeks: 

1. T****'s team actually joined in media outlets asking that the federal trial be televised. No decision yet on that. 

2. The Judge gave his legal team until January to decide whether they will present a "advise of counsel" defense, which essentially says, "My lawyers said it was ok to do it." If they go ahead with this defense, it allows the attorney-client privilege wall to come down. 

3. T**** asked for any mention of the Capitol riots to be removed from the indictment so that the jury would not see it. She ruled that it is a moot point; she hadn't planned to show the indictment to the jury.

Trial is still set for March 4.

The federal classified documents case

This case surrounds the illegal retention of dozens of classified documents in unsecured locations, including the bathroom and the ballroom of Mar-a-lago. T**** is charged with 40 felony counts surrounding the keeping of the documents and the obstruction of the United States to get them back. 

Not much movement

There hasn't been a lot of movement, mostly because of the amount of classified material that must be handled. 

Trial is set for May 20, and though Judge Aileen Cannon has thought about changing it, it stands today. She doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to set it in stone, and her delays in entertaining motions may delay the start all by themselves. 

The Georgia election interference case

This case involves T**** and 18 co-defendents, four of whom have pled guilty already. They are charged under racketeering statutes with conspiring to obstruct the election results in Georgia. 

It's been mostly quiet

Not a lot of movement with the case, except for prosecutor Fani Willis's request for an August 5 start date. 

Also, Judge Scott McAfee has barred the release of "sensitive" evidence. This, after a couple of the co-defendents' video-recorded statements during their plea arrangements were leaked to the media. See here at WaPo or here at ABC News!

The New York hush-money case

There has been very little movement in this case revolving around paying off Stormy Daniels to keep her from talking about a sexual encounter. Trial date is set for March 25 in Manhattan. 

Remember the 14th Amendment Angle?

I had prematurely called the Section Three idea to disqualify T**** from state ballots dead in the water, but now it's creeping closer to the dustbin. Last week, a Colorado court found that although T**** engaged in an insurrection, he is still eligible to run for president because, "The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification." 

You may remember that Section Three of the 14th Amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Apparently the judge, the first one to have the cajones to say plainly that T**** engaged in insurrection, was not willing to say that President of the United States is an "officer of the United States." 🙄

Still, theres's life! The groups that brought the lawsuit is bringing it to the Colorado Supreme Court. We'll see how far it goes!

The 2024 Campaign

Not much to say. There have been Repug debates. I have not watched a single minute. Have you? There have been candidates drop out, including Mike Pence, and the field is now down to eight. Somehow T**** remains the frontrunner by far. 

The Chaos in the Capitol or, Repugs Run Amok

Drew Sheneman

The boys have been acting badly. It's such an embarrassment. 

GOP representative Tim Burchett (Tenn.) accused former speaker Kevin McCarthy of elbowing him in the kidney as he passed by. It was caught on tape by an NPR reporter. Burchett just happened to vote for McCarthy's ouster last month. Mc Carthy denied intentionally elbowing him, saying, that it was a "tight hallway."

Meanwhile, down at the Senate chambers, a United States Senator challenged a hearing witness to a fist fight. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) seems to have a score to settle with Teamster president Sean O'Brien.

See the video here, and after that, Stephen Colbert's take.

Colbert:

Other Bad Boys: Members of the United States Supreme Court

SCOTUS finally adopted a code of ethics, but there is no mechanism for enforcement or for oversight of any kind. So, Mr. Thomas can keep on accepting millions in bribes, I guess. 😑

The Good News: A lot to be thankful for

Reproductive Rights got a win this past Election Day!
Voters in three states voted to protect a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. Democrats and abortion rights activists won big in Ohio, Virginia, and Kentucky. This is very good news for 2024. Go, blue voters, go!!

SCOTUS actually made a couple good decisions. They refused to uphold Florida's ban on drag shows, and they appeared to hold up a law preventing perpetrators of domestic violence from owing a gun. 

People who were closest to T**** have been speaking out, and you can use their words around the Thanksgiving dinner table. Maybe they will sway "Uncle Maga" – and maybe not. But it's that good these citizens are lending their voice. 

Our system of checks and balances seems to be holding. 

Court cases are moving along as they do, people are being held accountable, and there is an election in just under one year in which we will wrestle back our democracy. Be grateful this Thanksgiving and have a wonderful, warm holiday!

Clay Bennett

More Flips!

We have flippers!

Bill Bramhall

Not this kind:

Nor this kind:

Not this kind either:

It's this kind!

 

Former T**** attorney Jenna Ellis. Don't she look smug in this mug?

Former T**** Chief of Staff Mark Meadows: Takin' down da boss.

Two more central players to the attack on our nation flipped! 

Within hours of each other, the news emerged that Jenna Ellis had pled guilty in the election interference case against her in Georgia, and Mark Meadows had been cooperating with the Federal investigation into T**** and his involvement in the attempt to overthrow the United States Government after the 2020 election. 

Jenna Ellis was one of the 19 co-conspirators facing felony charges in Georgia. She was an attorney and Faux News face that helped in the plot to install fake electors in Georgia and other states that would challenge the certification of Joe Biden as president-elect on January 6. You may also remember her as the one who had to endure Rudy Giuliani's farts at a hearing in Michigan.

In August, she stated on Twitter or X, or whatever it was called in August, that she would "trust the Lord," but by October she decided to trust that the Georgia justice system would be lenient if she pled guilty and promised to testify against other of her co-defendants. 

Ellis issued a tearful video statement after her conviction:

Her sentence: five years probation, $5000 in restitution, community service, a written apology to the citizens of Georgia, along with the pledge to testify truthfully in others' trials.

These early flippers – now numbering four – are getting pretty good deals. If I were a co-defendant, I'd want on that bus!

Mark Meadows, T****'s seemingly unshakable-in-his-loyalty chief of staff, finally broke with his boss and cooperated with the special counsel in exchange for immunity in the election interference case. He admitted he was "dishonest" with the public about the 2020 election. He stated that he told T**** multiple times that the claims of fraud were baseless. 

He lied to the public in front of cameras, and he lied in his book, "The Chief's Chief." Shame on him.

So, he has immunity in the federal case, but not in the Georgia case, where he is charged with two felony counts, the over-reaching RICO charge, and one count of Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, which stems from the call he arranged and took part in to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. 

I wonder if he will end up pleading guilty there.

He's not a flipper per se, but Mike Pence dropped his candidacy for president. And this means he is "just" a witness again. T**** can't talk about him without violating his gag order. And if We the People were very lucky, he would testify in open court (he has already testified in front of the federal grand jury and does not face any charges). 

Speaking of gag orders, Judge Tanya Chutkan, who had suspended the gag order while she considered a stay in light of T****'s attempts to appeal the decision, has reinstated the order. And in the New York civil fraud trial, T**** was fined an additional $10,000 for violating Judge Engoron's gag order there. 

Other trial news:

The Federal election obstruction case: T**** and his team are throwing out the idea that his trial should be considered double jeopardy because he was acquitted in the impeachment trial. Yeah, no. I'm not a constitutional scholar by any means, but no. Double jeopardy does not apply. That "trial" was in name only.

The Federal classified documents case: there is a hearing scheduled for this week, on Wednesday, November 1. Judge Aileen Cannon will discuss scheduling of the trial. Currently, the trial is scheduled to begin on May 20, 2024. We will see if that holds. 

The New York civil fraud trial: Ivanka Trump has been ordered to testify. She doesn't want to. But she's gonna. Ivanka had not been charged in the case, but prosecutor Leticia James states she has "knowledge of facts" and should talk about them. Sure, let's hear her!

Former T**** attorney Michael Cohen testified and got raked over the coals for his previous dishonesty. He's quite a scumbag, trying to rehabilitate by speaking out all over the place about his former boss, for whom he took a fall and served time in jail. He testified about his part in inflating the property values of T****'s properties to "what ever number Mr. Trump told us."

Nothing else to report tonight. I have a feeling though, that the Bus o' Guilty Pleas will be taking on more passengers this week. 

Stay tuned, resisters! 

Flippers and gags

Flippers and Gags

oooh... Sounds a little kinky, don't it?

Truthfully all the news in the last couple weeks does have me a little turned on....

Joe Heller

The shit is going down.

The Flippers

I told you in my last post about former bail bondsman Scott Hall, who pleaded guilty a couple weeks ago and worked out a deal with the prosecutor. He was the first of the 19 co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case to flip. Since then, two of the major turncoats have also decided to plead guilty and cooperate. Now they are turncoat turncoats.

You may recall that two of the inner-circle defendants, attorneys Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, had asked for and received a speedy trial and were diverted from the consolidated trial of the other 18. Their trials were due to start this month, and both took a turn.

Look at you, Sidney Powell!

First, on Thursday, attorney Sidney Powell, evil mastermind of the plot to subvert the Dominion voting machines data, decided to plead guilty to six counts. 

You'll remember Powell as the one promoting conspiracy theories about the election, such as the involvement of the (long-dead) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. She was at that infamous Oval Office meeting that almost devolved into fisticuffs. She is a bad lady. 

According to the Washington Post, the terms of her plea deal are: "six years’ probation and agreed to pay a $6,000 fine and $2,700 in restitution to the state of Georgia, turn over documents and testify truthfully in her co-defendants’ trials."

Chris Britt

Yo! Chesebro!

Friday, just as jury selection was underway, Kenneth Chesebro, former T**** campaign attorney, also plead guilty. 

You remember that Chesebro was the mastermind behind the plot to have fake electors "certify" a win for T****. Certify this, Kenny Boy!

The terms of his plea deal are similar to Powell's. According to the Washington Post: "Chesebro pleaded guilty to a single felony count of conspiracy to file false documents and accepted a sentence of three to five years of probation, a $1,000 fine, $5,000 in restitution to the state of Georgia, an apology letter, 100 hours of community service and a promise to testify truthfully against any other co-defendants in the case, should they go to trial."

Love those last bits of the plea terms! What co-defendants might they testify against? A few other co-defendants shared the charges that the Chese-man was facing. They are campaign operative Michael Roman, lawyers Ray Smith and Robert Cheeley, and! attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, as well as the big guy, djt himself. Powell shares charges with some of the lower-level conspirators, such as Cathleen Latham, former GOP Chair of Coffee County, Georgia, and Misty Hampton, the former elections supervisor who did Very Bad things like letting T**** people in to access the voting machines and tamper with them. 

But this. This is the best co-conspirator to testify against. A tremendous co-conspirator. The best. He must be tired of winning Bigly Co-conspirator:

Inmate #P01135809

Besides being a big win for D.A. Fani Willis in getting the convictions, with these two early trials off the table, she doesn't have to yet show her hand of the evidence she has. 

Chesebro gets to keep his law license, gets to serve his probation in his home area of Puerto Rico, and if he is a good boy during probation, he will have his conviction expunged under the first-offender part of the deal.

Powell's fate is trickier. She has had numerous lawsuits filed against her regarding her election interference, as well a Texas state bar lawsuit. She may be able to hold on to her legal license, but she has a lot of legal problems separate from this conviction. 

You can read all about Powell's path from quiet federal prosecutor and defense attorney to convicted felon in The Washington Post.

Three down, 16 to go!

The Gags

Judges now in two cases have issued gag orders on the primary defendant. 

In the Federal election interference case, Judge Tanya Chutkan placed a limited gag order last Monday, prohibiting T**** from disparaging the prosecuting attorneys, court personnel, and potential witnesses. Judge Chutkan said, "Mr. Trump is facing felony charges, and he does not get to respond to every criticism if that response could affect a potential witness. He doesn’t get to use all the words."

By Friday, she had paused the gag order while she considers the defendant's intentions to appeal the decision. She will hear arguments about the gag order and then decide if it shall remain in place while it is being appealed. 

It gets sticky, because one of the potential witnesses is also a competing presidential opponent, Mike Pence. T**** should have the right to talk about his opponent. Judge Chutkan ruled that, "If Mr. Trump wants to criticize his political rival, Mr. Pence, he may do so, but he cannot make statements about Mr. Pence’s role in the events in this case."

Nevertheless, T**** is loving the fight. He immediately took the issue to his followers as a donation pitch and issued his usual blustering statement.

This is the second gag order; you'll remember the first one stemmed from his behavior during his civil fraud trial. Judge Arthur Engoron prohibited him from posting about court personnel after he truth-socialed shit about the judge's clerk. 

Well! It turns out that that mean tweet was left up on his campaign website for 17 days after the judge issued the gag order and the original truth social post had been deleted. Judge Engoron fined him $5000.

Some pundits, like me, have applauded the gag orders.  Jeffrey Toobin in the New York Times said that T****'s rhetoric is not just intimidating but downright dangerous, and the Los Angeles Times editorial board assert that the gag order is right and proper. 

And some have cautioned that the gags are an overreach and a violation of T****'s First Amendment rights. Writers like Erwin Chemerinsky in the Los Angeles Times, who called it unconstitutional, and Jonathan Turley writing for The Hill, who called for it to be struck down. 

As the American Civil Liberty Union notes, however, "freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used." Freedom of speech ends when the speech interferes with others' rights. We the People have a right to a fair trial as well! Gag orders are not uncommon, and his status as a candidate should not factor in to protecting his harassing speech.

Other Trial News

The Mar-a-lago case

Co-defendant Waltine Nauta had a Garcia hearing, which considers conflict of interest issues. Nauta has retained T**** organization attorney Stanley Woodword. Woodward would be resonsible for cross-examining the third co-conspirator in the case, Yuscil Taveras. The trouble is that Woodward represented Taveras before Taveras fired him and switched to a public defender and decided to tell the truth. Judge Aileen Cannon criticized prosecutor Jack Smith's timing in bringing about the conflict-of-interest concerns. In the end, the judge ruled that Nauta could continue with Woodward despite potential conflicts of interest, and Woodward stated that he would not question current or former clients.

The New York State campaign Fraud / Stormy Daniels case

No news at this time. It's been put on the back burner so that the other cases can move forward a little more easily. 

Section Three Clarification

Last time I wrote, I said that the 14th Amendment, Section Three solution was dead in the water. That wasn't quite true. There are some lawsuits that are going ahead to force the issue, and no ban on T****'s candidacy will go forward without some court decisions. The groups who are pursuing a disqualification in some states face many challenges, however, and because of that I sort of prematurely called an "out" on that play. For accuracy's sake, I'll outline what the challenges at the state level are looking like. 

Minnesota: A challenge has been mounted in Minnesota by a group called Free Speech for People. Minnesota's Secretary of State Steve Simon has asserted that the secretary "does not have authority to investigate a candidate’s ineligibility." This prompted the group to pursue the state's Supreme Court to weigh in. The court ruled against T****'s direct involvement in the suit, but is allowing a pathway to allow his and his campaign's participation. Oral arguments are set to begin on November 2. 

Free Speech for People has also filed a lawsuit in Michigan. It is going ahead speedily. 

In addition, Free Speech for People had written letters to the secretaries of state in several other states asking for a ban, including Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and New Mexico. The secretaries have pretty much all backed away, saying they don't want to appear partisan and that it's not in their scope to determine who is and isn't eligible. 

The only other serious court case that I have found going ahead is in Colorado. A group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a lawsuit to prevent T**** from appearing on the ballot there. The court has repeatedly rejected T****'s efforts to shut the lawsuit down. The trial in Colorado is set to begin on October 30. 

Stay tuned, Resisters!

A Month's Worth of Updates

 It's been a minute!

A lot has happened in the few weeks since my last post. My thoughts have been otherwise consumed. I'll try to catch up with a quick digest!

Section Three of the 14th Amendment

My last post was all about Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which mandates that no one who "has engaged in insurrection or rebellion" may "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States." Seems that the Section Three boat is dead in the water as a solution to the Orange Problem. And I understand the reasoning. There is little precendent, and there are other legal questions to be answered before action barring him should be undertaken (for example, is he an "officer" of the United States?)

He may become a more dangerous beast if anything other than voting keeps him from office, and violence could erupt if any state official kept him off the ballot. True, voting barely worked the last time, and it didn't keep violence at bay. But it's our republic's weapon, and we must use it. 

Here is a very good analysis from Ruth Marcus at the The Washington Post. And Politico describes how some Democrat secretaries of state are not keen on it either. So, as elegant, interesting, and correct the idea is, it has evolved to be just a thought experiment. We have to gear up for battle at the voting booth. 

T**** endorsed the idea of executing General Mark Milley

Just another day in 'murkkka. Read in The Atlantic. Disgusting.

He also floated the idea of shooting shoplifters on sight.

I don't know what scares me more. That he throws these kinds of ideas out there so casually, or that his worshippers not only not budge in their support, but they lap it up.

Jim Jordan's Mouth

Jim Jordan did his mouth thing again when he demanded that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis turn over all her evidentiary documents to Congress. And Willis shot back. Hard. 

In a scathing nine-page letter to Jordan, she took him to school. First class: Constitution 101. She wrote, “Your attempt to invoke congressional authority to intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case in Georgia is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution ... There is absolutely no support for Congress purporting to second guess or somehow supervise an ongoing Georgia criminal investigation and prosecution. That violation of Georgia’s sovereignty is offensive and will not stand." She pointedly wrote, "Your notion that different standards of justice should apply to a select group of people is offensive." And added, "those who wish to avoid felony charges in Fulton County, Georgia ... should not commit felonies in Fulton County, Georgia” and suggested that Jordan "consider directing the USDOJ to investigate the racist threats that have come to my staff and me because of this investigation." She went on to say that she will not "be bullied and threatened by Members of Congress, local elected officials, or others who believe lady justice should not be blind and that America has different laws for different citizens." Butthead. (Ok, so that was mine)

Here's the letter. Read more in Vanity Fair. 

Lord I despise that guy.

The Newest Tell-All

Cassidy Hutchison, former aide to T**** Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and star witness in the January 6 Congressional hearings, came out with a new tell-all book. And tell all she did! My goodness, lots of disturbing things within. I haven't read it, but the press has described a few concerning things.

• Rudy Giuliani groped her at the January 6 rally.
• Mark Meadows's clothing smelled like a "bonfire" after burning so many documents in his Whitewash office fireplace.
• Meadows got accidentally drunk when he downed three and a half White Claws, not knowing they contained alcohol (Meadows doesn't drink).
• Meadows admitted that he helped to "kill Herman Cain" by going ahead with the superspreader event held indoors in Tulsa in June, 2020.
• T**** didn't like to wear masks because it smeared his bronzer. So, how many lives were lost based on that one vanity? 
• And speaking of Covid, after the election, precautions went out the window and visitors were allowed in the Whitewash House even if they tested positive.
• T**** admitted to Meadows that he had lost the election.
• The leader of the Odious Eight, Matt Gaetz, hit on her numerous times. Ewwwwww!

You can read about all that and more from Yahoo News or NY Magazine or scurry down to your local independent bookstore, buy her book, and see for yourself!

Speaking of the Odious Eight...

I don't usually address all the myriad aspects of the monkey circus that is today's Republican Party, but Matty G and his band of gormless grubs threw the House in disarray when they ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. Again, another first in history. 

The chaos is not good for our country. 

And yet, it's not so surprising. The Odious Eight set the stage for chaos. They forced McCarthy into making tons of concessions just to get elected to the speakership after a historic 15 rounds of voting. One concession was that a single member could force a vote to remove the Speaker. And not-so-surprisingly, Kevin is blaming the Democrats for the dysfunction. 

Bill Bramhall

It is not clear who will take the speakership. Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan are running for the position, but it's not clear that either has the votes.

T**** has made it known that he would like the position himself, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says he can't. At least one writer, Rex Huppke from USA Today, suggests that T**** go ahead and take it. I mean, why not? It would skip a few steps. As it stands today, though, he has endorsed Mr. Sweaty himself, the foaming-mouth Jim Jordan. 

And remember this about Matt Gaetz

Emma Specter in Vogue (I love that hard journalism sometimes comes from fashion magazines. Strong women, strong country!) wants us not to forget what Gaetz is all about. He is a vile, vile man. 

"Word salad" 

T**** has been stumping on the campaign trail, though he has skipped both of the Repug debates VP auditions. 

And it hasn't gone well.

A campaign rally in the middle of last month had him fretting about Biden starting World War II, and suggested that he beat Barack Obama in the last election and is besting him in the latest polls as well. 

“We would be in World War II.” Trump has lost it, he’s demonstrating how cognitively impaired he is. Watch him ramble, stumble on his words, blank out, then turn to reading the teleprompter to save himself, reading it intently. And he still misspeaks. (Video: Newsmax) pic.twitter.com/cS1GLrPHL3

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) September 16, 2023

And in another campaign stop, he blathered these things. Not only is it bizarre, but his speech seems dysarthric to me.

There 👏🏼 is 👏🏼 something 👏🏼 neurological 👏🏼 going 👏🏼 on 👏🏼 with 👏🏼 this 👏🏼 man.

And in the court cases:

Judge Chutkan in Washington declined to recuse herself

The tangerine turd made a bid for Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the Federal January 6 case against him, to recuse herself. She declined.

Judge Cannon in Florida has paused the case

Judge Aileen "Loose" Cannon, overseeing the classified documents case in Florida federal court, has put a pause on proceedings while she thinks about T****'s request to extend some deadlines. 

Judge McAfee in Georgia will continue to preside over the case

Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the Georgia election interference case, won't need to consider a motion to move T****'s trial to federal court because T**** withdrew his bid to move it. There is speculation why he changed his mind, and Harry Litman writing in the Los Angeles Times, surmises that it's because the judge is a white former member of the Federalist Society, and T**** "may have better prospects for charming and cajoling McAfee" than Judge Steve C. Jones, who would be the one to preside in federal court, and who last month shut down Mark Meadows's bid to move his trial there. 

Judge Merchan in Manhattan is mulling a motion 

Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the hush-money case in Manhattan, has a motion in front of him to dismiss the case. Ain't gonna happen. 

Judge Engoron in New York found "overwhelming fraud" 

The civil fraud case is heating up. T**** is finding himself in quite the hot soup in New York.

Judge Arthur Engoron found that the evidence of fraud by T**** and the T**** Organization was so overwhelming that he made a summary judgement that there was fraud before the trial even started. The fraudster had inflated the worth of his properties massively (for example, Mar-a-Lago's value was inflated by 2300%, and the square footage in his apartment in T**** Tower was inflated from about 11,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet) to garner improved terms from lending institutions. He lived in a "fantasy world" according to the judge.

The trial, which was lost before it started, will simply determine how much the Ochre Ogre will have to pay in fines. It could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. He may also lose several properties. The trial started last week.

You can watch Lisa Rubin on MSNBC to get the latest developments in that trial.

And of course, he can't keep himself quiet and still. He may have bought a gun at a campaign stop, in violation of his Federal release conditions. And more pointedly, on the second day of trial, he truth-socialed attacks on the Judge Engoron's clerk, publishing her photo. 

Which led to....

A gag in that a-hole mouth

Judge Engoron issued a gag order based on the egregious truth social posts. Finally! His action opens the door to other judges deciding the same. Judge Tanya Chutkan is also contemplating a gag order. 

Ann Telnaes

They be jumpin' ship

Co-defendants in the Georgia case are starting to plead. Scott Hall, the Georgia bail bondsman who was accused of breaching voting equipment, was first. Hall pled guilty to five misdemeanor counts of conspiracy and will receive probation in exchange for his cooperation.

Since then, "a handful" of other co-defendants have been working with prosecutor Fani Willis to make deals. 

Let's get that tiny-handed turncoat to the stockade -- STAT! 

That's all for now, dear resisters. Stay tuned.

"The Sweep and Force of Section Three"

Bill Bramhall

Thank goodness for low water pressure and strong Constitutional pipes!

It's Constitution Time! 

You have seen news pop up about the Fourteenth Amendment's Section Three, which legal scholars William Baude of University of Chicago - Law School and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law have anaylzed in a brief to be published in The Pennsylvania Law Review, and which has been widely distributed. I first brought it to your attention to their brief entitled, "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" in my post of August 16, 2023 titled "⭐⭐⭐⭐." Since then, the issue has really taken off. 

Today we shall dive deeper into Section Three and look at the ramifications so far. 

First, a little bit about the authors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. Both are conservative constitutional scholars, and in fact both are members of The Federalist Society. Most members of The Federalist Society have major cooties, and these two may, but today they are our friends. In fact, they are quite possibly the saviors of our republic. 

Baude is quoted in the New York Times about their work on Section Three, "When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was. People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: 'We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.' And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add."

As we will see, this issue may very well reach the halls of the United States Supreme Court, and we shall see if fellow Federalist Society members Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is possibly a member, agree with the pair. 

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The authors wrote a brief 126 pages long about these 111 words. I read the whole thing – and other stuff – so you don't have to!

The brief is elegant in its simplicity and not really difficult to understand. Their analysis is broad and deep, and as far as legal writings go, it's pretty readable! I encourage you to read it here.

Let's dive in!

The authors make four points about Section Three:

1. Section Three is valid and not expired. The Constitution cannot change on a whim, nor if the circumstances prompting the adoption of the section has been resolved. In this case, Section Three was enacted as a result of the Civil War to prevent those who actively sought to tear apart the United States from gaining federal office. Though that threat has passed, the spirit of preventing people who attempt to subvert our republic from holding office lives forever. In short, the Constitution is binding.

They state, that "it is (or should be) basic constitutional law that it is the enduring text of the Constitution that supplies the governing rule, not the ostensible “purpose” or specific historical situation for which the text was written." They further point out that the Constitution does not expire. "The First Amendment is old too, as is the entire original Constitution. But both remain in force. This is true even if the purpose for which a constitutional provision was originally written has ceased to be relevant, or even if the constitutional provision at issue might be thought in today’s society to be something of an anachronism."

2. Section Three is self-executing. There is no need for Congressional action or court order. It is elegant in its simplicity. If you engaged in insurrection or given aid to those who have, then you can't hold office. Boom. Done. 

The authors remind us that the Constitution is "supreme law of the land." And as such, it is there is no further legislation needed. The lawmakers that come along interpret the law according to the Constitution, not the other way around. 

They also give examples of other self-executing clauses within the Constitution, such as "No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" or "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

And in fact, Section Three has been used to remove a person from office after the January 6 insurrection. The authors describe the case of Otero County, New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin, the leader of "Cowboys for Trump." He was convicted of misdemeanor trespassing on January 6. He had also refused to certify the election results in his county. After his conviction he was barred from state office in New Mexico under Section Three, and the state Supreme Court upheld that decision. Side note: a Los Alamos resident was one of the three who filed suit to have him removed.

The authors note:

[Griffin] promoted, assisted, and ultimately joined in the January 6 insurrection against the Capitol. A group of New Mexico citizens filed a quo warranto action against Griffin under New Mexico law, seeking his removal from office. The New Mexico district court took evidence, received legal arguments, and then concluded that Griffin was disqualified under Section Three. More precisely, and quite correctly, it held that Griffin had been disqualified since the day of the January 6 insurrection, and ordered his immediate ejection from office, and permanently enjoined him from seeking or holding any other covered position.

They assert that those who decide such things, such as state secretaries of state and elections officials, must invalidate the candidacy of an insurrectionist. They write, "state election officials around the country would be bound by Section Three in deciding whether to put him on the ballot, even in the primary." And they conclude, "Section Three thus functions as a sort of constitutional immune system, mobilizing every official charged with constitutional application to keep those who have fundamentally betrayed the constitutional order from keeping or reassuming power."

3. Section Three supersedes any previous provisions in the Constitution that conflict with it. (I love this point; it throws a stick into the wheels of the first argument the Chief Insurrectionist will make). In other words, it supersedes the First Amendment guarantee of free speech when that speech was used in the commission of an insurrection. All the rest of the speech? Still free.

The authors quote Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist Number 78. They write:

It not uncommonly happens that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression,” Hamilton wrote. When this occurs, the courts must determine the “meaning and operation” of the two provisions. 

Hamilton articulated two principles for doing so, which work as a complementary pair. “So far as they can, by fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done”—there’s the first of the pair, but Hamilton’s sentence does not end there, but instead pauses only ever-so-briefly, with a semi-colon, before proceeding to the second rule of the pair: “where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first.” This was, Hamilton continued, “a mere rule of construction,” but it was an appropriate one, “consonant to truth and propriety,” consistently recognized by courts as interpreters of law: that, as “between the interfering acts of an equal authority that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.” 

Hamilton went on, more famously, to explain that a different interpretive principle governed the interfering acts of a superior and a subordinate authority—and proceeded to derive the proposition customarily called “judicial review.” 

But that is not the interpretive question here. Here, the key point is precisely Hamilton’s lead-in proposition: that, as between “interfering” acts of equal legal stature—the paradigm being two statutes, adopted by the same legislature, at different times—the last in time prevails to the extent of any true, irreconcilable conflict. As with statutes adopted by the same legislative authority at different times, so with constitutional provisions adopted by the same authority at different times and possessing the same legal status: By the terms of Article V, constitutional amendments are “valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,” when adopted. Thus, where We, the People, have adopted a new constitutional text “interfering” with or departing from prior constitutional provisions, the last-in-time enacted prevails to the extent of any conflict. That is the interpretive principle that governs the relationship between new constitutional language and old language from which it departs.

They give the example of the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery conflicts with the Fugitive Slave Clause and therefore supersedes that part of the Constitution. Similarly, Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment conflicts with the Three-Fifths Clause, and so the Fourteen Amendment supersedes. 

"And furthermore, regarding Section Three's apparent conflicts with the First Amendment, "to the extent of any inconsistency between them, Section Three overrides, supersedes, or satisfies the free speech principles reflected in the First Amendment. That is: Whatever the correct meaning of Section Three as applied to conspiracies, attempts, incitements, and advocacy that meet the description of 'engag[ing] in insurrection or rebellion' or of giving of 'aid or comfort' to enemies of the constitutional government of the United States, the constitutional meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment modifies or qualifies what otherwise might have been thought the dictates of the First Amendment." (italics theirs)

They give good arguments about the apparent conflicts with the First Amendment, and conclude by saying: 

For those (like us) who value First Amendment liberties of speech, press, assembly, religion, and the right to dissent generally, might Section Three therefore be thought a little dangerous? Might Section Three, in the wrong hands or applied improperly, be used to suppress dissent in the name of excluding insurrectionists from office? Perhaps. We do not shy away from the point. But the supposed danger of a constitutional provision is not really an argument against its meaning. And the potential abuse of a constitutional power, privilege, or disqualification is not really a good legal argument against its existence. Section Three’s exclusion could be thought to pose a danger; but insurrection and rebellion are dangers too—all too real dangers, as recent events have shown.

4. The disqualifications are sweeping. The language is simple and clear, and allows "no person" who has "engaged" in an insurrection "or" given "aid or comfort" to others. As the authors state, "Section Three is harsh. It is categorical. It is insistent." Just what we need! 

As Constitutional scholars do, they look at the dictionaries of the times, the Constitution itself, and contemporaneous usage for help in definitions, as well as a Supreme Court case and cases brought under Section Three itself. The authors break down the meanings of the words that define Section Three's disqualifications. 

You will get a good history lesson reading this section of the brief, especially their analysis of the language and the previous insurrections and rebellions that the United States has endured.

The authors purport that these definitions apply to Section Three:

• insurrection: concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.

• They discuss the differences between insurrection and rebellion, defining rebellion as basically a form of insurrection, where rebellion is an effort to overturn or displace lawful government authority by unlawful means.

• engage in: actively involved in the planning or execution of intentional acts of insurrection or rebellion; or when one has knowingly provided active, meaningful, voluntary, direct support for, material assistance to, or specific encouragement of such actions in either words or deeds.

• aid or comfort: indirect but material assistance. Such material assistance—possibly including expression supporting, encouraging, counseling, or promoting the enemy

• the enemies thereof: We believe that “enemies” as employed in Section Three, embraces enemies both foreign and domestic.

• The people disqualified by Section Three: looking closely at the words, the authors summarize that anyone who previously held an office that needed an oath to support the Constitution (ie, all of them) are disqualified from holding office again under Section Three if they engaged in the prohibited behaviors outlined in the Section.

I had not known about the Ironclad Oath that office holders took during 1862 to 1884. It is a list of "never-have-I-evers" that was required to be sworn to upon taking office. The authors point out that it is essentially Section Three's sentiments in a retrospective oath. Before assuming office, government officials had to swear:

I . . . do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never [1] voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have [2] voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have [3] neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have [4] not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto.

Section Three seems to be this, but in a prospective form.

Finally, the authors look closely at the events surrounding January 6, and conclude, yes, it was an insurrection, maybe even a rebellion; and yes, the former president not only "engaged in" but "aided and gave comfort" to others, so it follows that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly disqualifies him – and many others – from holding office again. And furthermore, it's up to numerous people, from state elections officials, to presidential electors, to members of the judiciary (including the Supreme Court) to ensure that he never hold office again. It's an imperative. After all, they are all sworn to support the Constitution. The whole Constitution.

In summary, the authors conclude:

It is enforceable by anybody whose duties provide occasion for judging legal eligibility for office. Indeed, each of these actors has a duty to faithfully apply Section Three. All possess legitimate constitutional interpretive authority to construe and apply this constitutional prohibition, many of them independently of other actors, including courts. ...

No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong – indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office—to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three. It is wrong to shrink on the pretext that some other officials may or should exercise their authority—as if one’s own constitutional obligations cease to exist if others fail to act. And it is wrong to shrink from observing, and enforcing, the Constitution’s commands on the premise that doing so might be unpopular in some quarters, or fuel political anger, or resentment, or opposition, or retaliation. The Constitution is not optional and Section Three is not an optional part of the Constitution. 

Yes, it's all so obvious, but it's delightful to read it laid out so cuttingly in this legal brief. 

So, what to do with this news?

Run with it!

Soon after the brief appeared online, an attorney in Florida filed a lawsuit to disqualify him from the ballot.

In Colorado, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) filed a lawsuit on behalf of some voters this week seeking to bar T**** from appearing on their ballot. T**** wasted no time in responding, asking the courts to move the case to federal court. 

New Hampshire, Michigan, and Arizona are contemplating similar actions. 

It will take only a couple swing states to keep him off the ballot to keep him out of our hair. And bonus: more lawsuits mean more of the orange one's resources are being eaten up. On second thought, that's not a bonus. Much of his legal money comes from people who can't afford to bankroll his legal woes but they do so anyway. If it meant T**** was selling off gold toilets, then I would rejoice that aspect. 

So what about practically in the 21st Century, in a divided nation, and a bonkers right wing? This is the wild card. T****'s cult will not be happy with secretaries of state and others deciding to leave him off the ballot. Cases will be filed in court, and it will go to SCOTUS to decide. It's glaringly obvious that this constitutional mandate must be honored. What the MAGAts do once it's decided? We shall see.

Other Tidbits in the News this Week

Mark Meadows's bid to move his case to federal court was denied. Nyahh-nyaaah!

Lindsey Graham and a couple state senators were recommended to be charged by the Georgia grand jury. Save your tears, Miss Lindsey!

The grand jury for the January 6 charges has reconvened in Washington. Will new charges be brought?

 

Former T**** adviser Peter Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the January 6 committee. His former boss is reportedly "really really upset" at the news. Awwww pobrecito!

Remember that video tech guy who monitored the cameras at Mar-a-Lago? You'll recall that Yuscil Taveras, aka “Trump Employee 4” was asked by his boss to "delete the server." Well, he changed attorney from a T**** PAC-paid-for lawyer to a public defender, and he decided to change his testimony and implicate T**** in the scheme. Flipper strikes again!

Til next time, Resisters!