Sunday, August 10, 2025

This Is So Much Worse Than Fearing Maxwell

Vance: We did meet at the white house yesterday but not at the time they said we were going to meet and not about the subject they said we were going to meet about. We didn’t talk about Epstein at all.
No, of course you didn’t. 🙄 Because this is just what you thought up, on your own, in between one vacation a month since January. 🙄 You know what would prove this, right? Say it with me: “The Epstein Files.”

And try to remember your administration’s talking point about how transparent this administration…is. I mean, you just said Trump has demanded full transparency from this. What’s the hold up? Is it Biden’s fault?

They really only know one thing: those files cannot be made public. And Trump is responsible because he’s the President of the United States, and we only have one of those at a time. Trump is also responsible because he rode this conspiracy into office, promising to release all the secrets. And now he’s trying to blame the Democrats for demanding the release of the files that…would implicate the Democrats?

Could it be any clearer those files implicate Trump? I mean, over and over again they try to distract from that simple fact by shouting louder that “THERE’S NOTHING TO SEE HERE!” So, obviously, there is. It’s a worn out sitcom trope. It only fools the characters in the sitcom because the story is written that way.

Trump is as helpless now as he was during Covid. The difference is, now he’s only 7 months in.

And they are more pathetic now, than they were then. Which is saying something.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Arguendo

The Committee consisted of Trump and Epstein in their efforts to get girls for Prince Andrew.
Assume this is true (for all I know it’s utter bullshit, so humor me). How does this play out?

Maxwell was not in a position to talk to anybody. Nor does she want to. She (or her lawyers; either way) know anything she could say now, publicly, could affect even the review of her application for certiorari. Why would she fuck that up by talking to anybody about anything?

Blanche comes calling, she sees an opportunity. What if Trump had left her alone? She wasn’t going to talk to anyone. Not until her appeals were exhausted, anyway. Now she can make a deal; but really, Trump can’t buy her silence.

Back to Wolf’s allegation, then. That story, that possible truth, might still come out. If Trump pardons Maxwell, what keeps her from selling her story, then? Full disclosures, the whole enchilada. What’s Trump gonna do, revoke her pardon? Claim it was signed with an auto pen, so it’s invalid? Short of execution, they can’t stop Maxwell if she decides to tie Trump directly to Epstein. His only defense will be to release the Epstein files, and if nothing else is found, the cry will go up again that the Deep State is protecting…Trump?

He can’t escape this trap he built, that way.

She could blackmail him. She could be blackmailing him. But that’s her problem.

Why did they involve Maxwell in the first place? Getting her moved to solitary confinement so she couldn’t talk wouldn’t have been less obvious than moving her to Bryan. Talking to her in private just drew more attention to the failure to keep the promise and release the files. What if he pardons her? It’s a confession of guilt, straight up. 

In the end, Wolf’s story is irrelevant. The “motive” for Trump’s concern with Maxwell is irrelevant. Trump is panicking; the cause of the panic is irrelevant. There is no motive for his actions that makes his actions make sense. Exposure is obviously what he fears. But exposure of what?

We won’t know that until it’s exposed.
Posted by at No comments:

It’s A Representative Government

 


And it’s a small world, after all.
Posted by at No comments:

Signs Pointing To “Yes”

He’s only dangerous to the people dumb enough to think, if they take all their money out if their left pocket and put some of that money in their right pocket…they now have more money.

And that’s not the only impact of tariffs:
And what Trump is doing for us now: And Sen. Graham slips his leash: Let’s drop the big one, again? Meanwhile, in D.C., frantic to get attention off Epstein: “Get ‘em out by Friday!” comes to our national capital: If he’s going to give them a place to stay, why doesn’t he just do that? Why this backwards “I’ll pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today” shit? Is it because he’s (shocking to even speculate, I know!), being disingenuous?

Or is it because he’s just an incompetent dipshit?
"Signs point to ‘Yes.’”
Posted by at 1 comment:

Same Energy…

...that Trump brings to bear on what to do about Ghislaine Maxwell.

Putin is coming to Alaska because he never has to leave Russia until he crosses the Bering Sea. It’s effectively the same distance to Washington, but if he has to ma’am emergency landing in Europe, he could be arrested. He’s wanted at the Hague for war crimes.

Which is another reason he shouldn’t be in Alaska.
I know. Hitler wasn’t even a war criminal at the time. I’m going to wear that parallel out. 

But not today.
Desperately seeking that Nobel Peace Prize he’s never going to get.
Posted by at No comments:

It’s Not A Mystery 🧟‍♂️

What happened to the GOP is that Goldwater lost to LBJ; and the arch-conservatives who saw Goldwater as their avatar started working on Project 2025. Not literally, but their own version of how things ought to be. Their next avatar was Newt Gingrich, and the wholly Astro-turfed “grassroots” Tea Party, which they treated as useful idiots and discarded as soon as the Tea Party became useless.

Not at all unlike MAGA.

Trump didn’t do a damned thing to the GOP. He’s not that smart, ambitious, cunning (feral or otherwise), or strategic. The GOP was hollowed out after the Tea Party and W and Cheney/Rumsfeld got through with it. That and decades of Chicago school of economics bullshit about the cause of inflation (Reagan didn’t lower government spending, as Friedman preached; Volcker raised interest rates to over 20% and strangled inflation out of the economy) and how government should be “run like a business.” Like Trump’s businesses? Or Elmo’s?

That argument, of course, is why NWS is rehiring 450 employees laid off by DOGE, and why Pantex had to rehire everyone to keep watch on nuclear fuel and processed nuclear waste in America. Because businesses don’t do that shit; governments do.

Trump and Project 2025 are nothing more than where the GOP has been driving the country since at least 1964. Some in the GOP don’t like that reality, because the party finally caught the car they were chasing. And it’s a bus full of zombies hungry to destroy brains.

Some of us can’t but say we told you so. And welcome to the resistance.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, August 08, 2025

Everything Old Is New Again

 James Buchanan, 1826

If the Supreme Court should ever become a political tribunal, it will not be until the Judges shall be settled in Washington, far removed from the People, and within the immediate influence of the power and patronage of the Executive.
The subject is the Congressional requirement that the Justices spend part of their time “circuit riding":
Congress came to view circuit riding as serving two related goals: bringing the Court (and, through it, federal law) to the people; and bringing the people to the Court. Circuit riding, at least in the nineteenth century, was intended and perceived as a means of promoting accountability—for the Court and from the Court—at both the local and national level.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say we should return to a practice that was in place from basically the first Congress through 1911 (still longer than we’ve been without it), but it reminds us the Congress does have a lot of control over the Justices within the parameters of Article. III.

Just a reminder that the present is never set in the stone of the immutable past.
Posted by at No comments:

One Who, One What?

The Supremes have gutted the VRA (and, declaring the Constitution “colorblind,” as for so long it was “White” was, and is again, the only color it sees, they are castrating the 15th), and are on deck to finish off the remnants next term.

So, since redistricting can’t affect non-white voters unconstitutionally (that’s what’s coming) , why not just deny voters from the other party any representation at all?

That’s the logic of Patrick’s position. And I’m sure Donald Trump would agree with him. If you’re not with him, you’re against him. And then his job is to eliminate you from power and representation. Because power is all that matters. “Checks and balances” just get in the way.
Who’s going to tell Ken that there were no “illegal immigrants” in 1787, because there were no immigration laws? One might also point out Texas is one of those “states that attract illegal immigrants.” And it’s up to Congress to “correct the ills that have occurred.” If any. Because the Court has ruled, over and over again, that “person” means…person. It’s not up to Trump to change that.
Posted by at No comments:

A Little Too Ironic

 So Ken Paxton went to the Texas Supreme Court to remove 13 Texas Representatives from office (lowering quorum to 90 from 100).  Yeah, Ken, that’ll work.

Here’s the problem with Paxton’s petition. Well, one of the problems:

But the Texas Constitution and state statutory law also authorize a direct action seeking a writ of quo warranto in the state Supreme Court. Article V, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution provides that the legislature “may confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of quo warranto.” The legislature, in turn, has authorized the high court to issue writs of quo warranto against “any officer of state government except the governor[.]”

Abbott argues that because a member of the Texas House is an “officer of state government,” the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear his quo warranto action. To support this claim, he cites a 19th-century Texas Supreme Court case, which he describes as holding that the phrase “officer of state government” must be “given its plain meaning.”

Conveniently, the governor’s lawyers ignore more than a century’s worth of rulings in which Texas courts have have narrowly construed the meaning of that phrase. As early as 1903, in Betts v. Johnson, the state’s Supreme Court held that the legislature intended “to include only such state officers as are charged with the general administration of state affairs, namely, the heads of the state departments.” More recently, in In re Nolo Press/Folk Law, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court described the phrase as applying only to a “small circle” of state officials. The court explained:
We have construed this phrase to refer, not to every State official at every level, but only to chief administrative officers—the heads of State departments and agencies who are charged with the general administration of State affairs.
As these authorities make clear, the Texas Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of “officer of state government” is limited to state-level administrative officials in the executive branch—not members of the legislature. You wouldn’t know that from Abbott’s brief, because he cites none of those cases.
Now, that analysis is about Abbott’s petition to remove Gene Wu; but Paxton’s petition to remove Wu and 12 others is subject to the same defect.

There’s another jurisdictional problem relevant to both Abbott and Paxton’s petitions:
Even if Abbott manages to overcome the aforementioned jurisdictional hurdles, there’s no guarantee that the state Supreme Court will agree to hear the case. The justices have rarely entertained direct actions to the Supreme Court for a writ of quo warranto. And, on several occasions, it has required parties seeking the writ to first pursue their claims in the district court. That course of action may be particularly appropriate here given that there are bound to be disputed questions of fact concerning Rep. Wu’s conduct and intent.
Questions of fact are decided at a trial, in a trial (not appellate) court.
...in a 1873 case called Honey v. Graham, the justices made clear that the question of whether a public officer “abandoned” his or her office is a fact question to be resolved in court.
Appellate courts can decide whether questions of law were properly presented to triers of fact; but they cannot sit as courts of original jurisdiction, trying and determining questions of fact. Questions of fact can only be resolved by triers of fact; in trials.

There’s another problem, too:
Finally, there are serious questions as to whether the case is even justiciable. Courts generally avoid intervening in entirely internal legislative disputes, recognizing that political questions are best resolved within the legislature itself. And the Texas Supreme Court has on at least one occasion refused to get involved in a legislative dispute concerning quorum-breaking. Given that Abbott’s petition essentially asks the court to intervene in internal legislative matters, there are prudential reasons why the Texas Supreme Court might decline to hear it on justiciability grounds
These are all questions of law, the kind appellate courts deal in.

Now let’s look at Paxton’s reported distinction/argument (from the Texas Tribune, not a Lawfare review of the pleadings). Paxton said he’d have to take this to 50 (or at least 13) district courts (remember?). 
But in Friday’s filing, he argued that the Texas Supreme Court has the right to rule directly on this case, especially when there is a need to swiftly resolve the matter.
Not swift resolution of the problems of floods in Texas, but of Trump’s need for five more seats in Texas. A political emergency, IOW. Doesn’t count, on the same grounds of justiciability. And the whole constitutional issue of due process of law.

Abandonment of office is a question of fact. That means it must be decided by a trier of fact, being a judge or a jury. Ken Paxton doesn’t have time for 13 jury trials in 13 counties. He’s trying to keep up with Cornyn’s escalation of getting help (maybe?) from the FBI. This is a fight between Cornyn and Paxton for the GOP primary vote in Texas.

If the Texas Supremes were to grant Paxton’s petition (remember, they must allow the action before they can rule on the action) and immediately rule on the petition, granting it, that would open a federal court challenge for 13 parties denied their 14th Amendment rights (due process and equal protection). This is not Paxton seriously seeking a quick remedy. The Court would at least have to allow 13 hearings, or one long, raucous one. The complications of working that out are just a bit daunting and, again, can’t be ironed out by the 18th (end of the session). Paxton knows that.

He’s just playing to one up Cornyn, if he can. His gesture is as empty as Cornyn’s claim the FBI is chasing down rogue legislators. What’s the endgame there? What’s Paxton’s endgame? Or Trump’s, with Maxwell?

None of them know. But all three are playing the same game. The same helpless game. Isn’t it ironic? Don’t you think?
Posted by at No comments:

I’m So Lazy…

I didn’t find this again until just now. So it’s an update, of sorts. I mean, you can see her saying it, which is something.

The management is really sorry for fucking up this badly and makes no promises to do better in the future. You get what you pay for. Caveat emptor.
Posted by at 1 comment:

“Peace In Our Time”

How much of the Sudetenland Ukraine is Chamberlain Trump willing to give Hitler Putin?

And who is it who doesn’t have any cards?
Posted by at No comments:

Does “Blueberry” Have 2 “B’s,” Or 3?

 




Bill Gates says AI is going to take all our jobs. If it does, we are fucked.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Why Don’t Americans Respect Congress?

Posted by at No comments:

⛳️

Posted by at No comments:

Because It’s Only About Trump

After all, the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Annie Farmer: And I think there's many other ways for him to move forward with this that would actually be indicative of him not being involved, that would not involve her—releasing more information as people are clamoring for. I think anything that involves her participation would be seen as a sign of guilt
That Trump & Co. don’t understand this proves just how scared Trump is. And how useless the people he hired are. Then again, it runs in the GOP. At every funeral and every wedding. NEW AND IMPROVED! That’s all you know, and all you need to know. See? PROOF!

But even when taking the adjustments into account, CNN reported that the Biden administration oversaw the creation of approximately 16.6 million jobs between February of 2021 (his first full month in the White House) and December of 2024. And while some of those jobs were the economy rebounding from the Covid-19 pandemic and adding jobs that had been lost as the economy shut down, the U.S. economy surpassed pre-pandemic employment levels by June of 2022, and continued to add roughly 240,000 new jobs each month, well above the monthly average of 125,000 new jobs per month since 1939.
So this’ll last about half a Scaramucci. And there’s still the Ghislaine Maxwell problem. Or the idea of doing a census…this year? Trump has a better chance of convincing the country Biden’s jobs numbers were fake, and his new and improved ones are true. And that the transcript of what Maxwell told Blanche will prove the Epstein matter is a hoax.

Posted by at No comments:

“ummmm…okay”

Noem responds:
Noem said during her Thursday appearance on Glenn Beck’s podcast that she did not watch the episode, titled “Got a Nut,” saying she was going over “budget numbers and stuff.”

“But you know, I just think it’s — yeah, it never ends. But it’s so lazy to just constantly make fun of women for how they look. Only the liberals and the extremists do that,” the DHS chief said. “If they wanted to criticize my job, go ahead and do that, but clearly they can’t, they just pick something petty like that.”
In that "orientation video” Noem is surrounded by a makeup team twice, and shoots 3 dogs.

I’m guessing her staff didn’t want to mention the dogs.

Sorry, I thought Mother Jones had posted the clip. I can’t find it (conveniently) on Twitter, so I’ll have to direct you to George Conway’s Blue Sky account, where he has several copies available.

The management regrets any inconvenience, and will offer a full refund upon request.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, August 07, 2025

I Gotta Wear 😎

Future’s so bright:
However, the president's triumphant tone does not match what consumer sentiment and economic data are currently showing. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the American manufacturing economy, which Trump has claimed will benefit the most from his tariffs, is currently "sputtering" as companies face higher costs of key inputs such as steel, aluminum, and copper.

"From March to July, U.S. manufacturing activity contracted, according to the Institute for Supply Management's monthly survey," noted WSJ. "The Manufacturing PMI last registered at 48, below the 50 score that differentiates growth and decline."

The Journal also cited top domestic manufacturers such as Whirlpool, Polaris, and Harley-Davidson, who say that consumer demand has been hit in recent months as consumers pull back spending in the face of the president's tariffs. In fact, Polaris CEO Mike Speetzen told investors during a recent earnings call that "consumers are really just reluctant to go spend right now unless they really need to or they're fortunate enough to have the financial flexibility to do that."

Data released last week also showed that the American labor market overall has nearly ground to a halt over the last three months, as the economy added an average of 35,000 jobs per month from May through July.

As if all that weren't enough, the tariffs are expected to hit Americans with price increases across a wide range of products during a time when voters say they are still very anxious about the cost of groceries.
Now, let’s talk about those “trade deals.” As I said before, if it ain’t a contract, it ain’t enforceable. And agreements between nations are the equivalent of contracts. Contracts have to be signed. International agreements have to be officially approved by those governments. If they aren’t, they aren’t contracts.

Trump’s “deals” aren’t even in writing.
"I just came back from two weeks in Japan, and I was talking to a variety of very senior government officials, none of whom I can name on the record. And let me tell you, the Japan deal involves what the senators described as being hundreds of billions of dollars coming in and 90% of the profits going to the United States," Wolfers said. "And there is no one in Japan who understands the deal remotely in those terms."

"More than that, you'll notice that this is a trade deal where we haven't seen a single word in writing," continued Wolfers. "And I think there's probably a pretty big reason for that. The Japanese were happy to leave this deal unwritten, so that Trump and [Scott] Bessent could tell whatever stories they want to tell about it, while not actually making the Japanese live up to any of this."
"And there is no one in Japan who understands the deal remotely in those terms." One other point common to international agreements and contracts is that there must be a meeting of minds. That’s not so much a metaphysical state as it is something apparent from the agreement: at least. What is most apparent is, that condition doesn’t exist here. The Japanese never agreed to anything, really. They just happily played Trump for a fool.

Trump is a very unreliable narrator. “Delusional liar” is a good synonym. He’s also just a blockhead.
Posted by at No comments:

Time As A Flat, Ungilded Circle

We’re gonna have to do that again in 2029, aren’t we?
Posted by at 2 comments:

More Unreliable Narrators

 Really, really not up to Trump:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 
A) Congress has to direct it; 

B) it’s conducted every ten years.

Now, if the Roberts Court decides Trump can suspend the 1st section of the 14th amendment, they’ll decide he can override Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3, just as easily. And then the Court finds out it is subject to the Congress and the Constitution, and some serious reforms take place. Which, to be fair, will happen if they rescind the first section of the 14th.

So I really think this is a dead letter. Not least because it would cause almost every state to lose electoral votes and representatives with them. Even Texas would have to worry about that. Trump is throwing kerosene on the redistricting fire, here, and he’s stupid (and venal) enough to not understand any of the consequences (racist xenophobia has that effect). I don’t think Congress, or even the Sinister Six, are going to back him. It’s a little too fucking blatant. As well as not at all feasible:
Just from a logistical standpoint it is not feasible to conduct a "new" mid-decade census with accuracy. To give a sense of the scale of what is required, preparations are already underway for the *2030* census. This will add chaos to the Census Bureau and degrade the accuracy of the 2030 census

Support for congressional appropriations for a new census are not guaranteed among Republicans since there are Republican members from states like Florida and Texas where the states will lose seats, and Republicans use noncitizens to draw *Republican* held districts (e.g., South Florida and Texas).

From a legal standpoint, the constitution and federal law is clear that congressional apportionment and redistricting are to be done with the 2020 decennial census. Where not prohibited in state constitutions or law, states could redistrict state legislative districts

In addition to navigating the political quagmire of Republican states and members representing districts with noncitizens, there are other constituencies that need accurate census data:

- businesses to make investment decisions
- police to allocate resources
- health to monitor disease outbreaks

It is not possible to conduct a new census and draw new districts for the November 2026 elections:

Congress has to appropriate money

AND

Census has to gear up and report new numbers

AND

States must draw new districts

All before 2026 primary candidate filing deadlines, which are months away

On top of this, each of these steps can and will be litigated, adding further delays

Hard to know what goes on in Trump's head, but it could be that the "new" census is a new and improved 2030 census, not a mid-decade census. The 14th Amendment Sec. 2 requires the census to count "the whole number of persons in each State" so changes to the 2030 census would be litigated
That was my first thought: that Trump was referring to the 2030 Census. If so, he’ll be out of office by January,  ‘29. Which plays hell with census preparations, but the new POTUS  could easily squash Trump’s racist demands. And if Trump tries it for 2025, it’s entirely too little too late. Litigation alone would probably tangle it up until 2027, at least.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn announced that the FBI has granted his request to investigate and locate the Texas Democratic lawmakers who left the state in an attempt to stop the passage of new GOP-favored congressional maps.

A spokesperson for Cornyn declined to provide additional details about the FBI’s involvement, and the bureau declined to comment.
You know the cartoons where the dog runs around pointing out the hiding places of Daffy Duck to Elmer Fudd? That’s what this amounts to.
In response to the letter, Cornyn said on a local radio show that Patel “had assigned agents in both the San Antonio and Austin office,” but he did not specify what role those agents would play.
I mean, we may not know precisely where they are, but we have a pretty good idea. And this is not exactly a criminal investigation, so what does the FBI do if they find someone? Point frantically at the hollow log?

This was Popehat’s response to Cornyn’s earlier announcement that he was asking the FBI for help.
The Feds can investigate and prosecute Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution, but my read of the statute is that it wouldn’t extend to flight to avoid the Texas civil warrants.

Of course Republicans don’t give a shit what the law is.
He’s referring to 18 USC sec. 1073, which reads in pertinent part (as the lawyers say):
Whoever moves or travels in interstate or foreign commerce with intent either (1) to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which he flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, punishable by death or which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the fugitive flees, or (2) to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings in such place in which the commission of an offense punishable by death or which is a felony under the laws of such place, is charged, or (3) to avoid service of, or contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of, lawful process requiring attendance and the giving of testimony or the production of documentary evidence before an agency of a State empowered by the law of such State to conduct investigations of alleged criminal activities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. For the purposes of clause (3) of this paragraph, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say this is how Ghislaine Maxwell was apprehended and brought to trial in New York, because I think she was in another state, in hiding ( or was she just in upstate New York?). Anyway, it would have been an appropriate use of the statute.

But the 50 Texas Democrats are not facing prosecution. As even Ken Paxton admitted, criminal charges would have to come from a local DA with jurisdiction and venue, and you’d need 50 of those. There isn’t even one, so far. I’d also point out that, while the news jumped on Cornyn’s statement, the FBI is mum. So we’re back to the problem of the unreliable narrator.

I’d venture to say even the FBI doesn’t see a role, here.

Paxton is supposed to start filing civil suits tomorrow. I almost hope he does.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Wednesday, August 06, 2025

Ghislaine Maxwell Gives Trump Clemency

And other recontextualizations:
Reporter: You were the driving force behind operation warp speed, the mrna vaccines that are the gold standard. Your health secretary is pulling back all the funding for research. He is saying that the risks outweigh the benefits, which puts him at odds with the entire medical community and you.

Trump: Research on what?

Reporter: MRNA Vaccines

Trump: We’re going to look at that. Operation warp speed, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, considered one of the most incredible things ever done in this country. We are looking at other answers to other problems, other sicknesses and diseases. And I think we are doing really well.
He has no idea: They’re still printing the coloring book.
REPORTER: Is Vice President Vance hosting a gathering tonight to talk about how to respond to the Epstein situation?

TRUMP: Is he working on what?

R: Is he hosting some kind of gathering of top advisers this evening to talk about how to respond to the Epstein situation?

TRUMP: I don't know
So, who is running things now?
TRUMP: I don't know
Posted by at No comments:

Is She Drunk?

Trump is certainly demented. And as ignorant as a stump. How many more have quit since you were confirmed?
Miller: The Democrats have gerrymandered this country beyond recognition.. Let's not forget Democrats rigged the 2020 census by including illegal aliens. They sued Trump. 20 to 30 of Democratic seats wouldn't exist but for illegal aliens. Texas is taking a small corrective step against this ocean of fraud. This ocean of abuse by the corrupt Democrat party
He means the census is polluted because it counts non-white people as equal to white people. The census once excluded 2/5ths of “all other persons.” Miller thinks that was too liberal.

And speaking of dumb things white men say: This seems to be what he meant: To which AOC responded: The only reason I care about it is this, which I consider the perfect response:
"Allegedly racist.” Because, you know, the hate that’s name dare not be spoken.
Posted by at No comments:

A.D.D.

TRUMP: Research into what?

REPORTER: mRNA vaccines

TRUMP: We're onto other things
“SQUIRREL!” 🐿️
Collins: They haven't been punished for buying Russian oil --

Navarro: We don’t want to get to a point where we hurt ourselves
ADD and complete dissociation from reality: Remember the Seinfeld episode where Elaine goes nuts with the Peterman expense account and buys George an expensive Russian sable hat? Echoing Peterman’s closing words to Elaine: We gotta see those checks. Now I know why Tim Cook was bringing gifts: We'll see if it worked:
if you have made a commitment to build or are in the process of building, as many are, there is no tariff. Ok? If for some reason, you say you are building and you don't build, then we add it up, it accumulates, and we charge you at a later date, you have to pay, and that is a guarantee
It’s all gonna be fun and games until the appeals court upholds the ruling that Trump doesn’t have the power to impose these tariffs. And then the refunds start….

Fun, fun, fun, until Daddy takes the T-Bird away.
Sun’s going down. 
It was reported on Wednesday that Vice President JD Vance would host a strategy meeting to help determine the White House's response to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and how to handle the information they have about him and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.

"But now, after significant news coverage of this scheduled meeting, sources say it may be moved, rescheduled, or canceled entirely," said CNN host Kasie Hunt.

Speaking to senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, Hunt noted that it was a little shocking to hear news that such a meeting would happen.

"What we learned is that the White House was also kind of floored that this information got out there from a number of sources, to my colleague Alayna Treene and me, and a number of our White House team members, that there was going to be a dinner at all," said Holmes as Hunt laughed.
Which part is the hoax? Maxwell’s conviction? Her transfer to Bryan? The accusations against Epstein? His suicide in jail when he didn’t make bail? The stories of the victims? Your 15 year friendship with Epstein? Your complete inability to provide a coherent narrative about how long you were friends with Epstein, and why and when the relationship ended? I’ve never seen a human being corkscrew themselves into the ground so deliberately and assiduously. Trump is in a round room and he can’t find the corner to hide in. Nor the exit. Jake Tapper is not concerned. It’s too public to make a good scandal out of. Nobody’s hiding anything; well, except the MSM, which is hiding it in plain sight.
Posted by at 3 comments:

Speaking Of Bubbles

 Really?

If you’re lucky enough to have missed it, here’s the skinny on the Sydney Sweeney news cycle from hell: American Eagle put out an ad starring the actress that features a jeans/genes double entendre (“Genes are passed down from parents to offspring,” she says in the ad. “My jeans are blue.”). Cue an online freakout from people arguing that the ad is a Nazi/white supremacist/eugenicist dogwhistle.

As far as I’m aware, not a single elected Democrat has chimed in on the “scandal” — but it doesn’t matter. We’ve now entered week two of the ad permeating the coverage over on Fox News. President Trump has weighed in supportively, cheering that Sweeney is a “registered Republican.”

“This warped, moronic, and dense liberal thinking is a big reason why Americans voted the way they did in 2024,” tweeted White House spokesperson Steven Cheung in response to criticism of the ad.

“Typical leftist dishonesty – acting like conservatives started this fight and how petty we are to be commenting on a woman in a jeans ad. Now what got us here again?” right-wing commentator Megyn Kelly sniped in a spat with Pod Save America’s Jon Favreau.

He responded: “How we got here: a few random posters claimed the Sweeney ad is Nazi propaganda and then the White House and ultimately the President weighed in. Name a Democratic politician who complained about the ad.”

This is a dynamic endemic to our politics, a perfect crystallization of a problem that dogs Democrats in every culture war controversy. My shorthand for it goes: “The left and the right are clashing over x. The left is an Oberlin sophomore and the right is the governor of Texas.”

In order to balance out the extremism of the Republican Party, the media and Republicans themselves need an equally extremist figure on the left. As they rarely get that from elected Democrats, they’ll often content themselves with people vaguely “leftist,” even if they aren’t part of the formal Democratic Party, much less wield any influence over it. College kids are one of the favored stand-ins in this equation, since it’s fairly easy to catch a 19-year-old saying something dumb or histrionic, and comparable power isn’t a necessary prerequisite.
I want to be fair, so I think that’s a fair example of the argument. But two things I notice: this cause celebre is entirely for the terminally on line (touch grass. I’m begging you, for your own good. Touch grass.) and the FoxNews audience, which is shrinking daily from attrition and people dropping cable/DirectTV.

I sometimes think that, without FoxNews, half a dozen social media accounts I read regularly would shutter for lack of something to post. You get the idea. 

Despite all the attention on MAGA (by which media means Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk), an ill-defined “them” who give Trump hus superpower (“Will MAGA turn on Trump? Ever? Never? And what does it all mean? Tomorrow in the NYT.”), MAGA is a chimera. Trump wasn’t elected by MAGA. He was elected by his opponent being a woman. Here:
Trump didn’t sweep Texas. He took it because it’s still a one-party state (has been since Reconstruction. Culture is HARD to shift.) But he took it by less than Reagan or Shrub. I’ve seen elsewhere he got a lower percentage than Romney. He’s not riding on the mighty MAGA tide. He’s winning because Americans won’t elect a woman to the White House.

IOW, this culture war shit is a holdover from the days of Jerry Falwell (if you remember him). It’s a tired trope long since discarded by everyone but the pundits who talk to themselves and imagine they know what “the people” think. What’s renascent in American politics is certainly racism and sexism, with a rapidly diminishing dose of xenophobia (Miller-Trump are so ugly we’re turning against that). Same as it ever was. “Culture wars” was only ever a euphemism for fear of a brown planet (and country), anyway.

MAGA is a minority of a minority party, given power and size by a narrative that, in the words of Maggie Haberman, gives them the maximum benefit of the doubt. An illusion. A chimera.

Will they turn against Trump over Epstein? Who the fuck cares? Nobody is voting for Jasmine Crockett or AOC because “Epstein.” And nobody is voting against Democrats because Sydney Sweeney did an ad for blue jeans.

The Lovely Wife pays more attention to news now that she’s retired. But she pays attention to news, not Twitter or BlueSky. I’m sure she’s aware of the jeans ad, but only marginally. She hardly perceives it as the crack in the base of the Democratic party, the sign that they’ll never win again, and whoever follows Trump will win because MAGA controls programming decisions on FoxNews. If the Democrats have a problem, it’s not because of a 27 year old actress.

He’ll, by this time next year, there’ll be another stupid “controversy” to fill the dog days of August, another reason for Democratically aligned pundits to wail: “We’re done for, we’re done for!” And when Democrats take the House (and maybe the Senate) in ‘27, pundits can say again that the Democrats “over performed” once again.

And nobody will notice but the pundits, who mostly talk to themselves, but claim to be the Unacknowledged legislators of the world, as they pore over their virtual and imaginary chicken entrails to explain the past, and pretend it is the future.
Posted by at No comments:

Somewhat Visible On Social Media



 

Invisible to those with authority, and the responsibility that authority brings.
Posted by at No comments:

Asking For A Friend

 


Bill Gates recently said AI is going to replace workers. Did he mean husbands?
Posted by at No comments:

Congratulations You Ptochoi

I’m gonna ask again why Luke’s Beatitudes aren’t equally important.
"Congratulations, you poor! God's domain belongs to you!

“Congratulations, you hungry! You will have a feast.

“Congratulations, you who weep now! You will laugh.”

“Damn you rich! You already have your consolation!

“Damn you who are well-fed now! You will know hunger.

“Damn you who laugh now! You will learn to weep and grieve.”
Certainly a more succinct guide to how we should then live. And more straightforward than admonitions to not covet your neighbor’s ass. (Don’t blame me, blame King James.)
Posted by at 4 comments:

Tuesday, August 05, 2025

😵‍💫

Wright: I don't know why they're taken down. They're easy to find anywhere. If anybody can't find the national climate assessment report, they just got to Google a little better.
Wright: I don’t know…. I think it was released early on in the trump administration. It was not prepared during the trump administration

Collins: That report was released in 2018

Wright: Yeah uhh…
There is no spoon plan. As I was saying… Yes, it is.
Posted by at No comments:

Be Careful What You Ask For

What a bunch of bullshit:
Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the Texas Supreme Court to remove Houston Rep. Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, from office, an unprecedented escalation in Republicans’ efforts to resume business in the Legislature and advance new congressional maps.
Hang on, this could actually be funny, but first I have to get through this, because it ain’t all fun ‘n’ games.

First, the action to be filed here is called a quo warranto, and it’s a funky beast:
An action in the nature of quo warranto is available if:
(2) a public officer does an act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office;
Sec. 66.002. INITIATION OF SUIT. (a) If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the proper county may petition the district court of the proper county or a district judge if the court is in vacation for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto.
(b) The petition must state that the information is sought in the name of the State of Texas.
(c) The attorney general or county or district attorney may file the petition on his own motion or at the request of an individual relator.
(d) If there is probable ground for the proceeding, the judge shall grant leave to file the information, order the information to be filed, and order process to be issued.
The relief provided by statute is:
Sec. 66.003. JUDGMENT. If the person against whom the information is filed is found guilty as charged, the court:
(1) shall enter judgment removing the person from the office or franchise;
(2) shall enter judgment for the costs of prosecution in favor of the relator; and
(3) may fine the person for usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding and executing the office or franchise.
The Texas Supreme Court is not a trial court nor a court of first impression. Not for a quo warrant action. The statute explicitly places jurisdiction for such an action in “the district court [highest level of trial court/court of general jurisdiction in Texas] of the proper county.” Which means venue is in the county of the defendant’s residence. Even if Wu lives in Travis County (Austin is the county seat, and the Supreme Court is there), jurisdiction is in the district court, not the highest civil appellate court.

Abbott seems to think if he belches smoke he’ll puff up like a fearsome toad. But the statute defines jurisdiction and venue, and doesn’t define “an action…that by law causes a forfeiture of his [sic] office.” That requires findings of fact. That means it requires a trial, and Wu would be entitled to a jury trial. He’s also entitled to service of process, and 20 days (IIRC) to answer, as well as notice of hearing and opportunity to respond. Unless Abbott thinks he’s gonna get a TRO to force Wu back to Austin. But all that gets, at best, is a hearing within 10 days where Wu can appear through counsel.

Abbott is not going to get Wu before this all becomes moot. There are 16 days left in this special session. A new one resets all clocks and votes on House rules for appearance. 

I don’t think Abbott could get a TRO on grounds Wu is in Illinois. What constitutes a “forfeiture of office “ would require opportunity to present facts and defenses, and make legal arguments. In a district court that would take more than 16 days. (Wu is allowed more than 16 days to file an answer to a forfeiture suit. And that hasn’t been filed in the proper court, brought by the proper party (the AG, not Abbott), or had service issued. By the time all that’s done, the session is over , and the issue is moot. Oh, you could amend the petition to include a new instance of forfeiture, but mootness is still an issue, because this is not a regular civil case where you file with the clerk and get service issued immediately. You’ve got to have a hearing first:
If there is probable ground for the proceeding, the judge shall grant leave to file the information, order the information to be filed, and order process to be issued.
I mentioned a TRO earlier, because that’s the only order one can generally get from a court without the presence of the other party. But I would assume due process would require a hearing with both parties, and briefing on the legal issues. 16 days would be up PDQ, getting all that arranged. Unusual to let a defendant argue against filing and service, but a TRO follows filing; it doesn’t precede it, and it’s allowed only because it ends in 10 unless extended after a hearing with all parties at least having an opportunity to attend. Perhaps it’s treated as civil equivalent of probable cause, but there, too, the defendant can ask for a hearing at arraignment (Perry Mason wins all his cases at those hearings). So it seems logical a defendant could argue for a chance to challenge the probable grounds evidence and legal argument. Especially since “act of forfeiture” is not defined in the statute, but is probably established, to some degree, in case law. And the case law seems to point this way:
Chad Dunn, a former attorney for the Texas Democratic Party, said proving abandonment of office would require showing that the member had failed to perform the duty of their office and intended to relinquish the seat, both of which he argues are not evident in a quorum break.
Yeah, you’re not gonna prove that in 16 days.,

Here’s where the fun part starts: this has prompted a public spat between Abbott and Costello Paxton:
Attorney General Ken Paxton, who threatened to file similar legal actions earlier in the day against multiple House Democrats, followed Abbott's emergency petition by sending his own letter to the state Supreme Court hours later, in which he argued that Abbott lacked the authority to request the removal.

Paxton wrote that while he "appreciates the Governor’s passion" for restoring a quorum, state law permits only the attorney general or a local county or district attorney to bring what's known as a quo warranto proceeding, which seeks a member's removal on the grounds that they have abandoned their office.

In the letter, Paxton said he would take action against the absent legislators if the House continued to lack a quorum on Friday, the deadline set by House Speaker Dustin Burrows.
Paxton has the same time line problems Abbott does, and the same problems proving forfeiture. Paxton is never going to prove 50 legislators intended to relinquish their seats, and if he could prove it before November, Abbott would have to call 50 special elections, and he wouldn’t have a quorum until after they were held. Hell, one strategy might be to give Abbott what he wants, and not challenge the forfeiture actions. Abbott and Paxton would be the dogs who caught the car. Now what?

Seriously. The 50 could come home, run in their specials, and Abbott couldn’t hold a session until after that. Time it right, and it could ruin Abbott and Costello Paxton. 50 suits would require 50 hearings in 50 counties just to find probable grounds, before service could even issue. Answer after 20 days, then decline to contest. Abbott then has to arrange 50 special elections in accordance with the law, then start all over again. Wait a minute, I’ve got this:
Sec. 203.004. DATE OF ELECTION. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a special election shall be held on the first uniform election date occurring on or after the 36th day after the date the election is ordered.
(b) If the election is to be held as an emergency election, it shall be held on a Tuesday or Saturday occurring on or after the 36th day and on or before the 64th day after the date the election is ordered.
So, back of the envelope: 45 days to file the request, show probable grounds, issue service, and allow for answers. That’s probably too conservative: even Paxton’s office can’t get to 50 judges on one day. Or get 50 uniform hearing dates, decisions in all 50 on the same day, issuance and service simultaneously, etc. But 45 days, arguendo. 

We’re already into October on this very conservative timeline. Now hearings and trials, and acquiescence (why waste too much money on lawyers?), and it’s Hallowe’en. If 50 courts are all in Abbot’s hip pocket. Pro tip; they aren’t. Oh, and 30 days before the 50 judgements becomes final. 30 days for each individually, depending on when the judgements are filed. Filing deadlines (early November, IIRC) for the ballots are upon us before Abbott can even set 50 special elections. And he has to call special elections before he can call a special session. No quorum, remember? Abbott did that. Or Paxton. Same difference.And wait 36 days, plus, for those elections. 50 of them, called no earlier than when judgements become final. Each one.

Win-win.

This is a very top of my head strategy, and a Rube Goldberg one, I freely admit. But it would hoist Abbott and Paxton on their own petars. (No, that’s correct. I don’t have time to explain it now.)

Pretty sure the Texas Supremes are gonna take Paxton’s offer to stay out of this. And if the Democrats really want to deny Trump his redistricting, staying across the Red River until November ain’t gonna work. It never has. They gotta come back sometime, and the Speaker will just lock ‘em in next session. Call Abbott’s bluff, and make him learn the lesson of being careful what you ask for. 😈
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)