Random Thoughts 6/4/24: Hunting Hunter

Drinking my coffee, listening to the birds chirp, and trying to corral random thoughts.

• Should Hunter Biden be given the same "It's lawfare, targeting a political opponent, it's rigged, it's a scam prosecution, no one else has ever been prosecuted for this, if his name wasn't Biden this would never be happening, a Trump judge tossed his plea deal because House MAGA Campers made her, the special prosecutor was appointed because Republicans demanded it (and then bitched about it when they got what they wanted and it wasn't what they wanted), the judge is biased, Biden can't get a fair trial because of the publicity, everybody does what he did, wah wah wah wah wah wah wah" treatment as Donald Trump was given?

• Should the judge, her family, the prosecutors, witnesses, and jury members be hounded? Doxed? Plastered all over TV?

• Should Hunter have a media perch outside the courtroom so he can cry a river every day to salivating media figures?

• Should prosecutors pursue cases without fear or favor? Or should they base their prosecutorial decisions on the name/fame of the defendant?

• Someone found that data for fiscal year 2019 - which includes October 2018, when Hunter checked a box saying he wasn't a drug addict on his ATF form - 478 people were referred to the FBI for lying on their forms; 298 of them were prosecuted. I didn't find details on what lies the folks who were prosecuted told, if they ever used their gun (Hunter didn't) or if they owned it for two weeks or more (Hunter didn't).

• The judge, on a vaguely similar case, sentenced the defendant to a year in jail, double what the prosecution asked for. Some info I've seen suggests that probation is the typical sentence. If Hunter's found guilty, will he be given the usual sentence, or will he be sent to jail, to make an example of him to damage Joe Biden's re-election bid?

• Biden could have just pleaded guilty to the charge (oh wait, he did that) and negotiated a deal (oh wait, he did that, too). Which is likely what most of the other folks did. Will he wake up and do that now, instead of trying to fight it?

• Since the prosecution plans on using text messages and Hunter's laptop as part of their evidence, what's the over/under on whether any of his nude shots will be entered into evidence?

• Can the members of the jury who have experience with drug addiction, gun ownership, or both, be fair?

• Why wasn't the woman who found Hunter's gun and tossed it in a trash can at a grocery store charged with something?

Stay tuned - maybe I'll get answers to my questions.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/10/24

Ready... set... wonder!

Does anyone else admit to being shocked that Hunter Biden showed up at the House Oversight and Fake Accountability Committee hearing today? And did anyone else have as much fun watching Aaron Rupar's clips as I did?

The point of the hearing, of course, was to do what's called 'marking up' a bill that would hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to sit for a closed-door deposition as requested by the folks trying to ruin his father make sure no one ever takes advantage of being in office again. I have to say, it was great theater - there was no lack of excitement, that's for sure.  

For example, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said both that Biden "had no balls" and that he was "the epitome of white privilege," while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-You Freaking Kidding Me?) seemed to take offense when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Constitutional Lawyer) said Greene had previously displayed pornography in the hearing room when she held up Hunter's 'dick pics.' Greene said it was not porn, to which Raskin replied, "You're the expert." Forgive me for this bit of wondering, but did Rep. Mace miss that hearing?

Earlier this week, we were advised that The Former Guy planned on offering closing remarks in his New York civil fraud case on Thursday. Sadly - or fortunately, depending on your point of view - we'll miss the opportunity to see the courtroom campaign rally because the judge isn't going to allow it. 

In an email exchange, Judge Arthur Engoron initially said Trump could speak, as long as he limited his remarks to what's required of attorneys:

commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence and application of the relevant law to those facts.

He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, "comment on irrelevant matters, or "deliver a campaign speech" or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers, or the court system, the judge wrote. 

Needless to say, Christopher Kise, Trump's lawyer, balked at that.

"You are not allowing president Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about," the attorney wrote.

So, what's the wondering on this one, you're wondering? Not a whole lot, really, other than how amazing it is that Trump can always find attorneys to make fools of themselves, knowing (as they must) that there's a risk they won't be paid their full billable amount, and that they may face legal action themselves for the things they say and the acts they commit on his behalf. 

If you don't believe me, look no further than Alina Habba who offered bizarre, and potentially threatening remarks about Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump's SCOTUS nominees. The Supremes will hear arguments about the 14th Amendment decisions in Colorado and Maine. 

I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up.

And that makes me wonder what argument Kavanaugh will use, since his answer is pre-ordained.

Oh - one more thing, speaking of 'ordained' - if you haven't yet seen the "God gave us Trump" video, you can see it, and an edited script, in this morning's post. I can't help wondering what religious folks think of all of this. 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sunday School 1/15/23: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson, from the CNN SOTU classroom, was all about toeing the party line. 

For your Extra Credit this week, I chose to spend time in the MTP classroom, where What's-his-name talked with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). We'll start with the senator. 

The Biden document issue was front and center. WHN asked if the White House, by not coming clean right away, puts Dems in a tough spot of "not knowing what to defend and what not to defend." Stabenow didn't have an issue here, and she made a distinction between what's happening now and what happened with former president Trump.

They take it very, very seriously. And they're talking to all of the right people. They're not going to defy subpoenas or require FBI raids to be able to get the documents. The president isn't saying that somehow magically when he thinks about classified documents that he can declassify them. I mean, it's totally different right now. Both serious in terms of having classified documents. But the president is doing the right thing.

Stabenow said it was "certainly embarrassing" that they found a "small number of documents, certainly not on purpose," but reiterated they're working with DOJ and the National Archives to correct it. And, she said, her concern is the "chaos" the Rs love to create.

Let's not talk about the fact that we have a manufacturing renaissance going on in this country. More jobs created, lower unemployment rate, higher wages. And what they're proposing to do that would interfere with that would really put us on the edge economically. They don't want to talk with us about how to move the country forward. And I can tell you people in Michigan, they want folks that are going together, get things done, that care about their families and aren't interested in all of this just chaos and investigations. Which is where the Republicans feel comfortable, unfortunately.

WHN wondered if there were any issues Stabenow wanted to work on, now that she's free from the political pressures of reelection. She said she'll continue working across the aisle, as she has "on issue after issue." She pointed to the upcoming five-year farm bill, which has bipartisan support, and said it's about more than just farms.

It's the largest investment we make in land and water conservation for the country. And so that's incredibly important. And frankly, we need workers. And one of the things we need to do is comprehensive immigration reform so that our farmers have access to a legal system for their workers.

The next question - whether Dems should support Kyrsten Sinema's reelection bid - seemed to come out of left field. Stabenow said she and Sinema have worked together, including on gun safety and mental health, but said "we'll let that play out a bit," and that "it's very, very early" to be talking about that.

Stabenow says she finds it interesting that so many people think that Washington DC and Congress are 'broken.' Even given "all the division and chaos and everything that's happening and trying to pull the country apart, (to) stop us from governing," 

we actually, in the last two years with a 50/50 Senate, you don't get closer than 50/50 in the United States Senate, Democratic House and President Biden got more done than at any time, literally in our lifetimes. And that's not an exaggeration.

She believes the reason the Dems gained a seat in the midterms, and why they'll keep the majority in 2024 "is because we are actually focusing on the things that people care about." 

Wondering on Wednesday 4/13/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Do you think, if people ever got their heads out of Hunter Biden's laptop, they might wonder how on earth Jared Kushner managed to get his hands on $2,000,000,000 of sovereign money from Saudi Arabia for his new private equity fund, called Affinity Partners?

Do you think wonder how Kushner got the investment, against the better judgment of the panel that screens investment opportunities for the Saudi billions, and why that panel was overruled by Jared's WhatsApp messaging friend, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, given these issues:

the "inexperience of the Affinity Fund management"; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump...

I wonder if any of them ever think about why they're so quick to find fault with inexperienced, unqualified oh-what-a-jerk-he-is Hunter Biden currying favor with other countries while his father was a senator or even when he was vice president, and don't give a MAGA-hat's worth of crap about what Jared is doing now? And may have done before, in his role as an official representative of the United States? 

I wonder why the jerks who get in fights on airplanes because oh-the-horror-they-have-to-wear-a-mask don't just pack their families and their freedom into the SUV and drive to wherever the heck they want to be, instead of getting on a plane in the first place?

I wonder if Mark Meadows regrets saying his official residence was a rusty trailer on Scaly Mountain? He's been removed from the voter rolls in NC, the state where "his" trailer lives, while an investigation is conducted into potential voter fraud. Or, if he at least regrets the 'Scaly Mountain' part?

Lauren Boebert, who represents a couple of people somewhere, I guess, wondered out loud about the recent election in France.

The socialist nation of France held elections today.

In that election there was no mail-in voting, early voting, or use of voting machines.

There was a mandatory proof of ID to vote.

Why can’t we get that basic election security here?

I wonder if she's figured out yet that we can't do here what they do there, because (a) we're not a socialist nation, (b) we don't have one set of election rules that everyone must follow, (c) we don't have automatic voter registration, and (d) she doesn't want us to be or have any of those things?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott bused illegal immigrants to Fox News in Washington DC so their 'coming to America' moment could be memorialized for eternity. He also set up state inspections of commercial vehicles crossing the Texas/Mexico border through legal checkpoints in another stunt to draw attention to the border, immigration, and how effective he is as governor, or something. 

He's so effective, he's causing his own set of supply chain issues, much to the dismay of truckers, the Customs and Border Protection folks, the Mexican government and, you know, consumers everywhere. 

Oh - did I mention the truckers blocking the Mexican side, in protest of Abbott's initiative? I wonder if Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Cancun) will go visit the truckers and share their 'Freedom from Stupid Texas Mandates' message with right-wing media outlets? Or was that only good for his home country of Canada?

What are you wondering about tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday 4/6/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's going on out there in Wonderland tonight? Well...

ABC News is reporting that Hunter Biden, the son of the president, is living in a four-bedroom mansion in Malibu, costing someone around $20K per month, and the Secret Service is renting, at around $30K/month, a nearby mansion as their command center.  

Now, I complained about the costs of protecting the adult Trump children, at their homes and on their vacations, and I complained loudly about the former president making money by renting properties to the Secret Service. I mean, the Trump are at least millionaires; Jared and Ivanka are hundred-millionaires, and of course their father is allegedly a billionaire - but that might include the money in his campaign accounts, I'm not sure. 

So, what's the wondering about Hunter and his arrangement? One, he's living in Malibu - can't he find someplace a little cheaper, or is the light really that much better for his painting there? Two, why doesn't he open his mansion to the Secret Service? And three, are they really protecting him, or are they just keeping an eye on him and sending info to the prosecutors in Delaware? 

Speaking of the alleged billionaire, he recently did a video interview, which was published in The Atlantic. In the interview, he talked about January 6th in a way that, um, puts things in a different light than what most of us have been hearing over the past 15 months. Here's some of how the former president chooses to remember things, as recapped by AlterNet.

When Congress met to certify the Electoral College results, Trump told us, there had been a 'peaceful rally,' more than a 'million people' who were full of 'tremendous love' and believed the election was 'rigged' and 'robbed' and 'stolen.' He made a 'very modest' and 'very peaceful' speech, a 'presidential speech.' The throng at the Capitol was a 'massive' and 'tremendous' group of people. The day was marred by a small group of left-wing Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists who 'infiltrated' them and who were not stopped, because of poor decisions by the U.S. Capitol Police when some 'bad things happened.'

So, what am I wondering? Only this: If I want to have what he's having - whatever it is that gives him such confidence in this altered reality - where do I get it, how much does it cost, and is it legal? 

Speaking of 'bad things happening' - and yes, that's at least partly unfair - there's news about the CDC. Here's how the NY Post reported the story. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Monday it plans to undergo a month-long “revamp” as it faces a credibility crisis more than two years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a report.

Pretty much everyone I know, at one point or another during the pandemic, wondered what was going on at the CDC, or what was going through their heads with the many varied twists and turns, and the number of people who were speaking on behalf of, or instead of, or over the top of, the CDC experts. I'm not wondering why they're doing the review and the revamp - I'm just wondering if shutting up all the extra voices is going to be part of the change.

And speaking of public health and whatnot, there's an optical illusion of a running man; it's said that if you see the man running towards you, you have a 'male' brain. If you see him running away, you have a female brain. I don't know if I believe the science of the study, but I do know Republicans believe there are women and men and that's all there is. 

I wonder, if a Republican man looking at the image perceives the man running away, can he really be a Republican - or a man?

Circling back around to alleged billionaires, and Republicans, and men, and women, there was a time when the alleged billionaire went out on a limb and said that a woman who has an abortion should be punished. 

Trump stated that if abortion was banned and made illegal, there "would have to be some kind of punishment" if a woman got one anyway. Matthews, to his credit, did not have a heart attack, or even jump up and down doing a happy dance that he had finally asked the question that might take Trump down.

Instead, he pressed, and pressed, and pressed, trying to get Trump to commit. to a specific punishment. Ten cents? Ten years? Trump answered probably a dozen times that the punishment would have to be determined. And so it went, until the actual exchange was pushed off the air by the comments from everyone else.

And here we are: in Oklahoma, a new bill that makes performing an abortion a felony absent a need to save the life of the woman in a medical emergency.

Any person convicted of performing or attempting to perform an abortion is guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000.00 or a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. 

Gov. Kevin Stitt will sign the bill, gleefully I imagine, when it lands on his desk, as he'll sign all the other abortion bills that are heading his way, including one that mirrors the 'blow in your neighbors' language from Texas. 

Six years and a month ago, in the post about Trump's punish-the-woman comments, I opined that

If the Right wants to be tough on crime, and tough on legal abortion, then they should be standing up in support of Trump's comment, instead of running from it. They should be shouting it from the rooftops, rather than shouting at Trump for saying what he did. They should be castigating him for walking it back, as he did, instead of castigating him for saying it in the first place.

If not, their convictions are without courage, and conversely.

And I wonder, tonight, if anyone thinks I'm wrong on that. 

In Case You Missed It (v66)

Got your cuppa? Here's your recap of last week's posts.

I devoted my Sunday School classroom time to folks who have been tapped to serve in the incoming administration, including Jen Psaki, who'll be the new White House press secretary. She talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday about a number of things, including the day's hot topic. Take a look.

And, finally, the Hunter Biden questions: does Biden promise to let US attorney David Weiss (he's currently conducting the investigation) finish the job?  And second, what does Biden think about a special counsel possibly being appointed to investigate his son?

 Well, let me be crystal clear, Chris, and I appreciate you asking this question. He will not be discussing an investigation of his son with any attorney general candidates. He will not be discussing it with anyone he is considering for the role, and he will not be discussing it with the future attorney general. It will be up to the purview of a future attorney general and his administration to determine how to handle any investigation.

That's pretty clear, and boy, I  hope she's not kidding. 

A lot of classroom time was spent talking about the likely-committed-by-the-Russians computer breach, although some of the people interviewed pointed out that we do need to make sure we do the hard work on attribution before we go off all halfcocked and hog wild down the retribution path. I included those interviews in your Extra Credit. 

One of the folks making the rounds was Kevin Mandia, CEO of FireEye, the cyber security company that initially discovered the breach. He talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. Here's part of their discussion on how we keep this kind of thing from happening again.

He said we need to "have doctrine," like we do for the use of chemical weapons, so people know the rules of the game, and if we don't, he thinks it will just get worse.

We're going to see the borders continue to be pushed outward in cyber attacks-- to the point where, when do we finally do the work--when it's already intolerable, when it already got so bad that we have no choice but to respond. But like you said, it starts with doctrine. With doctrine, you have to get attribution right. And with attribution, then you have to do a proportional response to whoever the actors were. 

I dropped a Trump in Transition post, the 48th in that series, on Tuesday. There'll be one on January 20th, I think. We'll see if he earns one before then. Here's a bit of that brain dump.

The millions who showed our displeasure, our distaste, our dislike, he cannot or will not comprehend. Our exhaustion, he cannot comprehend. How annoyed we are, how sick we are of his constant self-promoting, the embarrassing tweets, the grifting, the cast of characters by whom he is surrounded, that he foists upon us, that he honors and celebrates, he cannot comprehend.

Equally incomprehensible is that, as he pretends all of this isn't happening, didn't happen, isn't true, he continues to roil the waters in which his devout supporters swim, working them into a frenzy of martial-law supporting, havoc-wreaking, our-country-has-been-stolen fanatics. They are insisting he will be president, he will have his second-term inauguration come January 20th, and they don't care what it takes to make that happen.

Sometimes, trying to get my arms around this stuff between him and his followers, I beg for the chance to have my own 'Bobby Ewing in the shower' moment, I really do. 

Disgraced former Buffalo-area Congressman Chris Collins was in the news again; he was the subject of a note from The Update Desk.

Tonight, the impeached, lame duck president issued 20 pardons and commutations, with Collins being among the lucky. 

That the former congressman was the first one to support the president probably was very meaningful to Trump - and I can only imagine that, had he still been in office, Collins would have happily added his name to the list of 126 House Republicans supporting the 'Texas+' lawsuit (sorry, tired of listing the other states that joined that ridiculous case). 

My Wondering on Wednesday included a bunch of random questions (including a couple related to Christmas) - and the ones below.

Why is the United States considering offering immunity to Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi royal who's such a good What's App friend of Jared Kushner, for his role in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi?

Who will be the next target that the president will attack, now that he's gone after the #2 Republican in the Senate? Any guesses?

Why are people all of the sudden worried about foreign policy? Why haven't they been complaining all along? And why are reporters and politicians lying about it?

I took the rest of last week off, for a little holiday R&R, but we're back at it. See you later for Sunday School.

Sunday School 12/13/20: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, let's see if we can ask better questions than Chris Wallace did in his Fox News Sunday interview with House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, who represents the good people of Louisiana. 

Wallace started the interview asking, after the Electoral College votes for the Biden-Harris ticket, "will you stop contesting this election?" Here's Scalise doing his best to not answer.

Well, Chris, look, there has been a lot of contesting of the election in multiple states. The president's done it, other groups have done it too, and that's because of the concerns people had. When you look at massive vote swings days and weeks after the election, millions of people feel very frustrated with this process. And, look, there -- there's going to ultimately be a conclusion to this, but for now I think, if you just discount the fact that millions of people wonder, why is it that in some states Florida, Texas, large states, they had the results by 10:00 that night and then in other states it was days and weeks. And during those days and weeks you saw massive vote swings that just seed a lot of distrust. That's got to get resolved. We've got to start getting back to the point where we can resolve elections on the night.

At this point, I would have asked Rep. Scalise to name a single state that had a "massive vote swing" in the 'weeks' since the election. Wallace didn't ask that, but he did push back.

But -- but -- but -- but -- but -- but, Congressman Scalise -- Congressman Scalise -- There -- the reason that there were these votes swings was because in a lot of states they weren't able to count the millions of mail-in ballots until election night. And everybody knew that -- and, in fact, it happened in Florida, it went the other way. They were able to count the mail-in ballots early, so it favored Biden early and then it swung to Trump. In Pennsylvania, they had to count the mail-in ballots late, so it started pro-Trump and then it swung to Biden.

Now, that's an opportunity for Scalise to take a deep breath, grab himself by the whatever, and admit that Wallace was right - that yes, everyone knew that the absentee ballots were going to go for Biden and that Election Day voting would favor Trump. Did he do that? Of course he didn't. 

Well, Chris, first of all, look at New York, right? The Claudia Tenney race in New York. She's up by 12 votes. Just the other day they found 55 votes in a desk drawer. You know, this kind of stuff – people look at this and go, what is going on? This is the United States of America, it's not Venezuela. That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?

"Well, Steve, " I would have said, "what on earth does New York's 22nd Congressional District race have to do with the presidential race, the Electoral College, or the ongoing assault on our country by the Republicans? That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?" 

Wallace waited until after Scalise finished his thought, including bringing in the Georgia runoffs (they all do that, the GOP) in a way that makes no sense. 

Let's have a chain of custody. Let's get back to making sure that everybody can have full confidence in our elections. But just to look the other way and say, hey, look, you know, three weeks later they pulled -- they pulled the corner like -- people are very frustrated with this.

There's still an election in Georgia on January 5th. And three weeks from now, we need to encourage people to go back out, but also to have a system where there's going to be more confidence than what they saw back in November.

"But- but- but- but- but- (I would have said) - Congressman Scalise, wait - wait - what is going to be different in Georgia runoff? Early voting starts tomorrow. There have been hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots requested. Has Georgia changed any rules? What's different now that will give people more confidence in voting again? And what do you say about this tweet from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich?" 

Wallace took a different approach, asking about the "thousands of lawsuits" rejected by state and federal courts, rejected by Trump appointees, and of course the SCOTUS decision to not hear the Texas case. He also noted that Scalise was one of the 125 House Republicans that signed on as 'friends' of the Texas case.

The -- the Supreme Court threw it out without even listening to it. This was a lawsuit that was going to throw out the -- the votes in four swing states, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. I mean you were talking about disenfranchising the 10 million Biden voters who supported the president- elect in those four states. Do feel comfortable throwing out millions of votes of your fellow Americans?

Scalise then pretended he didn't want the outcome he wanted. 

Well, nobody wants any votes thrown out, Chris. And, the fact, the 70 plus million votes that are also at stake for President Trump.

They don't want any votes thrown out, except the ones that went for Biden and not Trump. We know what, and so do they.  Wallace pointed out  "but that's what your lawsuit would have done, sir," even as Scalise tried to pretend that wouldn't be the case.  

Well, no. What -- if you look at the Texas lawsuit, what it was saying if, there are some states that didn't follow the laws that were on their books. The Constitution is very clear that it's state legislatures that set the process for -- for having electors. Some secretary of states changed those rules.

And, he said, the Supremes "don't like getting the the middle of disputes between other branches of government." 

At that point, Wallace went back to his original question, saying

So -- so, bottom line, even though the electors tomorrow are --more than 270 of them are going to say that -- that Joe Biden is the next president of the United States, you're not willing to recognize him as the president-elect, and you're not willing to stop contesting this election?

His response? Let's talk Bush v Gore, and get that wrong.

Well, hold on, Chris. First of all, Joe Biden has been going through a transition that even President Trump supported, while he's also following what the court allows. There are legal challenges allowed. Nobody said back during Bush v Gore, prior to the Supreme Court finally resolving it, and ultimately there -- there was an -- you know, electors met, there was a swearing in. Nobody disputed that. Maybe some of the Democrat side.

But you didn't see people ask prior to that to pass judgment before it was fully resolved. Let the legal process play out. But if you want to restore trust by millions of people who are still very frustrated and angry about what happened, that's why you've got to have the whole system play out. There will be a president sworn in on January 20th, but let's let this legal process play itself out.

I wish at this juncture Wallace had asked Scalise how he'd explain the Supremes ruling in Bush v Gore that no recount could be held in time to satisfy a federal deadline for the selection of state electors - but he didn't. 

They also talked about the fact that AG Bill Barr knew about - but didn't announce - an investigation into Hunter Biden's taxes, because he didn't want to interfere in the election, in accordance with DOJ guidelines. He asked Scalise if that was the right thing to do. No surprise - he went all NY Post and censorship and that the stories that came out were true, and "I think people deserve answers to what really happened here." Which, of course, does not answer the question he was asked, but that's never been a hindrance.

Wallace pointed out that we don't know what truth there is, just that it's being investigated, and then asked "do you trust Joe Biden to  continue this investigation when he becomes president and his attorney general is in charge after January 20th, to continue the investigation of his son?

Well, I'm sure whoever would be put up for attorney general would be heavily scrutinized by the United States Senate. That is the advise and consent role that they would play. But, again, these are concerns that were laid out during the campaign, including yourself, other people in the media expressed concerns about that story and Twitter blocked the distribution of the story and it turns out there's a lot of merit to it. Whether it's completely true or not, we're going to find out, but it's being much -- much more widely reported now after the election and it's another reason that people have real distrust in -- in the mainstream media.

The last question was about California Rep. Eric Swalwell, who we learned had some contact with a woman believed to be a Chinese spy. (Wallace didn't mention that, back in 2015 when the FBI advised him that a fundraiser, Christine Fang, was a "allegedly a Chinese spy," Swalwell immediately severed all contact and fully cooperated with the FBI investigation.)

Referencing comments from House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy saying that Swalwell shouldn't be on the House Intelligence Committee, Wallace asked Scalise if he or McCarthy "have any evidence, hard evidence, that Eric Swalwell gave -- did anything wrong in his relationship with this woman, knew that she was a spy before he was warned about it and ever gave her sensitive information?"

His answer? If you want hard evidence from me, ask him. Ask Swalwell - "these are questions that Eric Swalwell himself needs to answer."

Maybe Wallace can have him on to answer all of the other questions Scalise didn't answer, too.

See you around campus.

Trump in Transition (v47)

If you had said to me, at any point since I started this blog in 2009, that one day I'd be talking about the president and massive dumps, I would likely have thought it was a challenge to create a steaming pile of crap, a bargeful of garbage, as it were, out of the news of the day. You know, like the MOBRO 4000, or something. 

Remember that? Back in 1987, folks out on Long Island wanted to ship a bargeful of garbage to North Carolina for disposal, thinking it a cheaper option. North Carolina didn't want it; neither did Louisiana, Texas, or Florida. Or Belize. Mexico and Cuba even threatened to shoot at the poor barge if it tried to dock. 

Finally, two months and some 6,000 miles later, the garbage came home and ended up, post-incineration, in an Islip landfill. The whole thing prompted this comment from R. Lawrence Swanson, director of the Waste Reduction and Management Institute at Stony Brook University.

I think the garbage barge is an excellent reminder of what can happen when we put the environment sort of off to the side and say, "we don't have to worry about it."

But here I am, 33 years later, remembering the MOBRO 4000, and writing about massive dumps. And I didn't even have to make these up - because yesterday the president called in to the Sunday Morning Futures show on Fox to talk with Maria Bartiromo, once a respected reporter. I'll let you decide whether this interview helps or hurts Bartiromo's reputation. Here's the first question, and the president's response. 

Mr. President, you have said many times that this election was rigged, that there was much fraud, and the facts are on your side. Let's start there. Please go through the facts. Characterize what took place.

Well, first of all, I have to start by saying the whole world is watching, and nobody can believe what they're seeing. And you have leaders of countries that call me, say, that's the most messed-up election we have ever seen. You start with these machines that have been suspect, not allowed to be used in Texas, the Dominion machines, where tremendous reports have been put out.

We have affidavits on -- from many people talking about what went on with machines. They had glitches. You know what a glitch is. That's -- a glitch is supposed to be when a machine breaks down. Well, no, we had glitches where they moved thousands of votes from my account to Biden's account. And these are glitches. So, they're not glitches. They're theft. They're fraud, absolute fraud. And there were many of them, but, obviously, most of them tremendous amounts, got by without us catching. We got lucky to catch them. I think we caught four or five glitches of about 5,000 votes each, and different states. And, again, they're not glitches.

That was fraud. And they got caught. But, for the most part, they got away with it. And what happened, if you watched the election, I was called by the biggest people, saying, congratulations, political people. Congratulations, sir. You just won the election. It was 10:00. And you looked at the numbers. And I'm sure you felt that way. This election was over. And then they did dumps. They call them dumps, big, massive dumps, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and all over. If you take a look at -- you just take a look at just about every state that we're talking about, every swing state that we're talking about.

And they did these massive dumps of votes. And, all of a sudden, I went from winning by a lot to losing by a little. And, in some cases, it took a period of time to do it. North Carolina, they couldn't do it. I won North Carolina. They couldn't -- somehow, they had a better system. But they couldn't do anything. I believe they tried. We have affidavits. But they couldn't do anything with the -- really a great place, North Carolina. We appreciate the incredible work they put in. And we won. But they did tens of thousands of -- tens of thousands of Biden votes. And, all of a sudden, I went from -- and I could tell you, the people that were calling me congratulating me are people that you know very well, friends of your show.

They said, it's over. I said, well, I hear bad things about the machines. I hear bad things about corruption. One of your great pollsters, who actually got it right -- you know the gentleman I'm talking about -- he said, well, Trump is going to win Pennsylvania, but you have to allow at least 5 percent for cheating, because they cheat. Right. And that's in Philadelphia and various areas around Philadelphia. They cheat, and they cheat like crazy. So, we have him winning Pennsylvania, but you have to allow five points for cheating. This is a terrible thing that's happened. The mail-in ballots were -- are a disaster. They sent millions and millions and millions of mail-in ballots.

I'm sure you know people that got two, three, or four, because I do, where they said, you know, we got four ballots. They got one at a country home. Dead people were seeing ballots. But, even worse, dead people were applying to get a ballot. They were making application to get ballots, many. And, you know, we're not talking about 10 people. We're talking - there are a lot of dead people that so-called voted in this election. But dead people were, in some cases, in many, many cases, thousands of cases, voted, but also dead people made application to vote. They were dead 10 years, 15 years, and they actually made application. This is total fraud.

 And how the FBI and Department of Justice -- I don't know. Maybe they are involved. But how people are allowed to get away from this stuff -- with this stuff is unbelievable. This election was rigged. This election was a total fraud. And it continues to be, as they hide. And the problem we have, we go to judges, and people don't want to get involved.

The media doesn't even want to cover it. I mean, you're doing something. You're actually very brave, because you're doing something. The media doesn't want to talk about it. They know how fraudulent this is. It's no different than Hunter. It's no different than Hunter. They don't want to talk about Hunter, so they totally closed it off, big tech and the media, other than The New York Post, as you remember, which took a lot of heat. Yes.  It was terminated. It was terminated from – Yes. -- I guess, Twitter, maybe Facebook. But it's a situation, the likes of which -- we don't have freedom of the press in this country. We have suppression by the press. They suppress. You can't have a scandal if nobody reports about it. This is the greatest fraud in the history of our country, from an electoral standpoint.

And I guess you could build it up bigger than an electoral stand -- what's bigger from an electoral standpoint? What is bigger than this? This is the essence of our country. This is the whole ball game. And they cheated. Joe Biden did not get 80 million votes. Now, we were -- we were planning -- we -- I got 63 million votes four years ago and won quite handily in the Electoral College, won quite handily. We did very well. I got 63. We were hoping to get 68 or so. And we felt that was a path to an easy victory. I got 74 million votes – Yes. -- the largest in the history of a sitting president, so much more, many millions more than anyone thought -- you know, than we were even trying to get. And everybody said, this is over. I'm telling you, at 10:00, everybody thought it was over. Right. And then the phony -- then the phony mail-ins started coming in, Maria. But, just so you understand, I got 74 million votes. It was over. And then mail-in started happening. Yes. Glitches started happening. This election was rigged. This election is a total fraud.

Here's another exchange, late in the interview, in which Bartiromo actually tried to question the president, instead of just encouraging him. I'm guessing she was running out of time. 

Mr. President, confirm that your cases will reach the Supreme Court in the next two weeks. Confirm that for us. And, also, what do you want to say to people like -- businesspeople like, for example, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J.P. Morgan, who said, it's time to move on and unify and accept the results, or Stephen Schwarzman, who is a supporter of you, who said, soon, we will have to move on? And what about the ramifications of the Supreme Court agreeing with you? Are you worried that we could see riots and -- when you have people who don't agree with you, they think it's just fine to throw bricks through your window and force small businesses to board up. Are you worried about unrest and rioting should the Supreme Court agree with you?

So, the people that we have and the people that are so committed to this like I have never seen, I think almost they have more spirit now than they do even before the election. All of the people, these are not rioting types. But they are stronger. They are smarter. They are more successful. Antifa is bad news. Nobody wants to do anything with Antifa except me. If I wasn't here, Antifa would be running this country right now. They'd be running the country. They always like to blame the radical right. It's not the radical right. It's the radical left. And it's largely Antifa and groups like this. And nobody even wants to talk about them.

Nobody wants to talk about what they're doing in Portland and what they're doing in Chicago and what they're doing in New York. And they club people over the heads when nobody is looking, and then nobody talks about it. It's a disgrace. It's absolutely a disgrace. And if I'm not here -- I'm sort of your wall.

You know, we're completing the wall, like I said I would. Everyone said, you would never be able to do it. I got -- that's another one I got built. And it's had a huge impact. We have the best numbers we have ever had on the Southern border. People come in, but they come in legally. But the wall is almost complete. And, to be honest, we look, and we see all of the different problems, MS-13. We take care of it. We bring thousands of MS-13 back to where they came from. We don't want them here. We bring them back. But Antifa is a real problem in this country. And nobody wants to take them on. It's disgraceful. It's disgraceful.

Which cases specifically will reach the Supreme Court, and when? Well, the problem is, it's hard to get into the Supreme Court. I have got the best Supreme Court advocates, lawyers, that want to argue the case, if it gets there. But they said it's very hard to get a case up there. Can you imagine? Donald Trump, president of the United States, files a case, and I probably can't get a case, even with -- and we have tremendous proof.

We have hundreds and hundreds of affidavits, sworn affidavits. And it's very hard to get a case to the Supreme Court. That's what everybody is fighting for. I thought that Mike Kelly, congressman, I thought they had a great case, and it got thrown out the other day. Now, they will appeal it, I hope, to the Supreme Court. They have a great case, because the legislature didn't make the decision on this stuff. And they have a great case. But you have to appeal it. The big thing is, can you get it? We could have a great case. We do have a great case. We have the greatest case ever. We have many different forms of fraud. It's not just one form.

It's ballot fraud. It's -- it's many -- we have it all documented. And we have tremendous evidence. So, we will say, we want to show you the evidence. And then the judge will say, they didn't show us the evidence. That's what we want to do. We want to have hearings to show the evidence. The time people started seeing evidence was in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, when people started showing it. You probably saw that. Great people came forward with affidavits, signed affidavits. We have hundreds of people like that, hundreds and hundreds. They make it like we don't have evidence. So -- We have evidence all over the place. But -- And, by the way, you asked about the machines, Dominion. Is there a path to victory? Yes, I hope so, for the good of the country. It will take a brave judge or a brave legislature. You know, we're -- Rudy Giuliani, he takes a lot of heat. Let me tell you, that guy is -- he has guts, because we have had lawyers that were afraid to go forward because they were threatened, viciously threatened.

They -- we have lawyers, Maria, good lawyers, that had to leave the case in the middle because they were threatened, absolutely threatened, both psychologically and otherwise. And they left the case, numerous, numerous firms, good firms doing a good job. And, all of a sudden, we end up having to scramble to get a case ready. What's going on has never -- nobody has ever seen anything like this. It will take a brave judge or justice, or both, Supreme Court justice.

Well, it sounds like, if you can't -- if -- it sounds like, if you can't be heard by the Supreme Court, you lose. Do you believe you will win this? We should be heard by the Supreme Court. Something has to be able to get up there. Otherwise, what is the Supreme Court? If election fraud at the highest level anyone has ever seen, with tremendous evidence, in a presidential election, if a man gets 80 million votes, and he's not even close to that number, Maria -- look, again, I don't want to bore you with this. He did not beat President Obama in areas where they said he beat President Obama. In fact, the black community had very little enthusiasm for Joe Biden. You know that. You have been reporting on that, very little enthusiasm for Joe Biden. The Hispanic community has very little enthusiasm for Joe Biden. He didn't get those numbers. And, by the way, I got the most -- I was the most successful with the Hispanic and the black communities. I was unbelievably successful. You saw that, record, record numbers. Yes. Oh, we have talked about that a lot. So, how did Joe Biden get all these votes? How did he get up to 80 million? How did he get up to 80 million votes? Yes.

In between those two exchanges, there were more dumps, massive dumps, from the president. At one point he claimed that he came up with vaccines, and that the media was going to give Joe Biden the credit. 

Honestly, that's in there, along with additional, lengthy attacks on the voting, on the media, on tech firms, and much more MOBRO 4000 type garbage, massively dumped. In my opinion, R. Lawrence Swanson's statement about the garbage barge up top, with only minor changes, can apply to our current situation.

I think the massive dumps interview is an excellent reminder of what can happen when we put the wrong person in the Oval Office, and leave him sort of out there and say, "we don't have to worry about him."

I sure hope we've learned our lesson, and that we never park a MOBRO 4000 on Pennsylvania Avenue again.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/21/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Well, what's to my wondering mind should appear, but an announcement that the FBI is going to make a major announcement about election security tonight. I wonder why people are wondering why that's going to be something about Hunter Biden? 

What else? The president walked out of his 60 Minutes interview, and threatened to release the video himself, taking it out of the hands of the network and interviewer Leslie Stahl. He hasn't said why he walked out but he attacked her, of course, because that's what he does to women who don't agree with him. Sometimes, it's almost like he's so upset about these interviews that he's got blood coming out of his... wherever, or something.

The president is not going to be happy that his own FBI is pointing fingers at Iran and Russia, not Iran and China, right now, live. Apparently these two foreign actors have obtained voter registration info, including perhaps email addresses and are sending fake stuff to people trying to scare them into thinking their votes will not be safe. I don't have to wonder why foreign folks try this stuff, because we've already seen American actors try something similar, including a couple of big fans of the president, who allegedly orchestrated threatening robocalls to Detroit residents, advising among other things that if they voted by mail, their information would be used for mandatory vaccination tracking.

We've got another debate tomorrow night, with mute buttons. Trump people are upset because this means it won't be a cage match, and the president will have to act like, I don't know, a regular person and not scream and shout and bully his way through the questions - no wondering that he's upset about that. And again, it's a woman moderator, Kristen Welker and from NBC, and he hasn't gotten over his 'loss' to Savannah Guthrie on his ill-fated town hall... Biden people are probably less annoyed by the changes, and actually may like them, because that'll cut out Biden's own less-than-presidential comments and interjections when Trump was talking. We'll see if it makes a difference, but I'm not holding out hope that it will.

I wonder if I'm the only one sitting back and watching elected officials who support the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president summoning all of the available righteous indignation they can muster to try and get Twitter, the media, and Rudy Giuliani, the president's Russia-challenged, Borat-challenged personal attorney to do their work for them? 

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering why, if this weren't 1000% election interference on the part of said personal attorney and right-wing media, they held back allegedly more damaging information, to be released between now and November 3rd?  

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering if they think releasing this will make more people vote for the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president, or if they think this will make fewer people vote for the other guy, giving the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president a better shot at re-election?

Honestly? I don't wonder about those last three things, at all. For the first, I know I'm not alone. For the second, I know I'm not alone. And for the third, we know it's the latter. 

What are you wondering about?

Wondering on Wednesday 9/23/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

OH EM GEE -- Didja know that Hunter Biden worked for Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and didja know that it was stupid that he worked for Burisma when his father was the vice president?  If you didn't know those two things, I've no choice but to wonder where you were during the impeachment.  And, today, I have to wonder what the heck Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson thought he was going to accomplish by having a lengthy investigation to determine those two facts?  Well, let him tell you himself.

People need to take a look at this report very carefully and understand what the ramifications are for electing Joe Biden as president.

Well, no -- I mean, we knew all of that before, even if Johnson didn't. Heck, even Republicans have called his investigation nonsense, with Utah's Mitt Romney saying

It is not the legitimate role of government, for Congress or for taxpayer expense, to be used in an effort to damage political opponents. 

And from this article in the NY Times, we learn that Johnson

said he was simply conducting the type of oversight with which his committee was tasked, and suggested that the investigation had been thrust upon him because Mr. Biden had opted to challenge Mr. Trump. The senator said that he “never thought Joe Biden should run for president,” and hinted that the former vice president had cognitive problems, a baseless attack frequently hurled by Mr. Trump.

I don't know about you, but I wonder if the most important thing we'll learn from the report is that Ron Johnson is completely unfit for office - something he was hell-bent on proving about Biden.  

And speaking of people profiting from and benefiting from relationships with politicians, let's wonder about these items:

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gave more than $6 million in contracts since September 2018 to the firm where acting Secretary Chad Wolf’s wife serves as an executive.
• Since assuming the presidency, Donald Trump has racked up more than 3,000 conflicts of interest from his refusal to divest from his businesses, according to a report released today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Trump averages more than two conflicts of interest per day, an astonishing rate of corruption... Highlights from CREW’s tracking include:  78 visits by members of Congress to Trump properties; 267 visits by the president to his own properties, each of which costs taxpayers money and makes Trump money; at least 30 visits by Cabinet members to events at Trump properties; 117 events hosted or sponsored by special interest groups at Trump properties, and nearly 80 more by political groups; 13 events held by entities with ties to foreign governments, and visits by at least 134 foreign officials, and of course, the 65 trademarks granted to Trump by foreign governments while he's been in office...
• Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross - "The Trump Official Who Keeps Watchdogs Up At Night" - has lied about divesting his vast financial holdings, and his "inaccuracies and omissions have also prompted serious questions about whether he took official actions that could affect his personal financial interests..."

There are so many more of this kind of thing in the Trump administration, either folks who are still there, or the many others who took their ethical challenges and went home. Are any of them fit for a government job, or fit for office, I wonder? Including Trump? 

What else is going on today?  Well, both the Republicans and the Democrats are actively engaged in sticking their noses in the election.  Let's take the Rs first: according to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 

The Republican National Committee is getting involved in an appeal over absentee ballot deadlines in Georgia, making it the 20th state where the Republican Party is fighting election lawsuits. 

From the Protect The Vote website, which is an arm of the Republican National Committee, 

Is it any wonder that the 20 states where the Rs are involved in lawsuits include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia - are all swing states?  

And the Dems? I don't think we need to wonder why they're fighting to keep Syracuse's own Howie Hawkins, the Green Party's presidential candidate, off the ballot in swing states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin... After all, we know that any vote for a candidate other than Joe Biden is a vote for Trump, right? Particularly a vote for a more progressive candidate than Biden. 

A reporter today asked the president what he thought about Harry and Meghan doing a PSA about voting. I was sure it was going to be the reporter from OANN, but it was actually the Daily Mail UK reporter. Trump's answer was typical - rude and denigrating - so no wondering there. Nope - the wondering is why anyone would ask that question in the first place. And then I saw that reporters also asked Buckingham Palace about the former royals, so I guess maybe that's just the way the UK reporters are. 

And we'll close tonight's wondering with this piece of news about the president's second son, Eric. He's been asked to appear for a deposition in a case brought by NY AG Tish James, but wanted to wait until after the election. After all, his lawyer said, Eric is a "vital and integral part" of his father's campaign, and he's traveling way too much to appear. Alas,

Judge Arthur Engoron has ordered President Donald Trump's son to appear for a deposition by Oct. 7, denying Eric Trump's request to wait until after the election.

Engoron said the argument to delay providing testimony was "unpersuasive" because "neither the petitioner nor this court is bound by timelines of the national election." 

So, what's the wondering on that part? 

• Will he really appear as ordered in two weeks? 
• Will the president's campaign legal team join the case? 
• Or, even better, will Snitty Snitty Bill Barr's Justice Department join the case on behalf of the president, because being deprived of having his number two son on the campaign trail makes this a case about the president?

There's more, as usual, but that's enough for one night.

Wondering on Wednesday (v194)

Ready... Set... Wonder

The impeachment trial continues in earnest today, likely ending before 11PM if all goes well, compared to yesterday's day-into-night-into-morning marathon. Part of me wonders what more the House Managers and the Trump team could possibly say for up to 24 hours that they haven't already said - although, for the president's team, maybe they learned something yesterday and will be better prepared to actually offer a defense? I wonder...

I also wonder who was the rocket scientist who came up with the now-and-hopefully-forever rejected idea of doing any 'horsetrading' on witnesses for the trial. From this Bloomberg article, 

Some Republicans have suggested the could be open to calling witnesses such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton if Republicans are allowed to call Joe and Hunter Biden as well as the unidentified intelligence community whistleblower.

While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said "that trade is not on the table," I honestly wonder why any Democrat would even consider going along with any request to allow people who are completely outside the actions taken by president Trump to testify, no matter what 'trade' they might get in return. 

First-term Indiana Republican Senator Mike Braun said that "the idea of witnesses will not get anywhere if it's not reciprocal" but there is no reciprocity when you're comparing Mulvaney and Bolton - people with direct knowledge of what was going on, according to all of the witnesses who testified in the House - to the Bidens, neither of whom 

• had any direct or indirect dealings with president Trump;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with President Zelensky;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with anyone in the current administration;
• had any direct or indirect involvement with the Ukrainian aid; or
• had any direct or indirect involvement with whatever drug deal Giuliani and Mulvaney were cooking up. 

As Joe Biden pointed out, the impeachment is a "constitutional issue. We're not going to turn it into a farce or political theater." Why is that so hard to understand, I wonder?

Moving on to something more entertaining, there's Kentucky's junior Senator Rand Paul, who said earlier today that there are 45 senators who are willing to dismiss the impeachment charges; the remaining senators are "wanting to hear a little more." this totally contradicts fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell, who said last week that there's "little or no sentiment" to dismiss without first hearing the presentations from the House managers. 

But it was his comments on the potential of John Bolton testifying.  Echoing comments from #IMPOTUS himself, Paul pointed to Bolton's tenure and tried to figure out what the right answer would be.

It's unknown. Some people who have talked to him think that he has an axe to grind, that he's angry he was publicly fired by the president. But he also has a history of believing in unlimited powers for the president. 

Which one is the guiding light for John Bolton at this point? Axe to grind and books to sell? Or, be a player and say, 'even if I'm gone, he's doing what I want on Iran and other things?'

Hey, Rand Paul, here's an idea: maybe Bolton is going to be a patriot,  and say, 'even if I'm gone, and even if Trump's doing what I want on Iran and other things, I don't care - and I'm going to do the right thing and tell the truth?'  

Wouldn't that be fun, I wonder?