Breaking Fake News Update (v22)

Fake News Broke on October 1, 2025! 

If you followed the reporting yesterday, you'll understand how this one practically wrote itself.  But let's dive in, just in case some folks haven't gotten up to speed on yesterday's hastily called, in-person gathering of military leadership in Quantico, Virginia.

Real news broke last week that the meeting would happen, and earlier this week, news leaked that it was basically going to be a pep talk, one of those dreaded teambuilding off-sites. And after that, news broke that FOTUS was also going to attend, which brought it down to a whole nother level. 

Anything in quotes in the fake news update are Hegseth's words; the rest, of course, are mine. There were lots of words, and lots of attempts to embarrass the leadership of the military, and lots of complaints about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and how we had to get rid of folks who are in place because of what they are, instead of based on merit, like he and the rest of the folks from the Fox News network were.  

 I also incorporated some of the rambling, sloppy political rally garbage offered by the FOTUS; it was he who suggested, after complaining about both President Obama and President Biden, and the media, and talking about the wars he's won, and telling folks how to walk down stairs, that our military could be deployed for training in American cities, to fight the enemy within. I did not make that part up. 

Was everything Hegesth said ridiculous? No, it wasn't. Could this have been an email? Yes, it could have, but then no one would have seen Hegseth parading in front of a giant flag, exhorting the troops, and no one would have seen him at the end, waiting for applause that never came. 

Should FOTUS have been there at all? Of course not, because he simply cannot do anything other than a rally, whether it's a Cabinet meeting, a meeting with a foreign leader, a speech to the United Nations, NATO, or any other gathering.  He, too, lamented the lack of applause, I guess thinking that these folks who are obligated not to participate in partisan political garbage would ignore that because they were in his presence. Good for them for not falling for it.

As always, when fake news breaks, we'll be on the case!

In Case You Missed It (v121)

Ready for a recap of last week's posts? Let's dive in!

As usual, Sunday School was first up, and the Jon Karl/Benjamin Netanyahu interview on This Week was the only lesson of the post. One of the highlights for me was the exchange about how Israel was being mindful of Palestinian civilians and the various ways they tried to keep them safe. Here's a bit of that part of the discussion.

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

I was incredulous with Karl's apparent lack of curiosity about Netanyahu's response.

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

For your Extra Credit, I again only offered one lesson: Sen. Marco Rubio's discussion with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom, which focused on immigration and the so-called border crisis which is so important the Senate couldn't pass a tripartisan bill that folks had worked on for four months -  or wouldn't pass it because the House had declared it DOA. Here's a snippet of the conversation on changes to how we would have handled asylum claims under the failed bill.

Rubio agreed changing the asylum standard is good, but "it's ultimately going to be applied by an administration that has proven its unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws." No matter what he was asked, his answers were consistent: from his perspective, bad liberals were going to be making bad decisions at the border - period.

Now, in the hands of another administration, perhaps that asylum standard could be applied differently. But, ultimately, once you have this asylum corps hired by Mayorkas, hired by Biden, put at the border, they are going to be -- they will have the power...

That got me thinking... 

Given the whole process that occurs after a bill passes - funding allocations, regulation-writing, job classification, hiring, background checks to complete... does he really think all that would happen before January 20, 2025 - or does he think Biden's going to be re-elected?

When it came time for Wednesday's Wondering, I was thinking a lot about President Biden and former president Trump, their ages, and their memories. And, about this.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving either of them a pass. I believe they are both the wrong people to be running for president. But if 'we' - the media, the punditry, the keyboard warriors - are going to make the age and mental failings of one of them an issue in the 2024 race, I can't help wondering what it's going to take to get 'us' talking about the other guy, too, with the same level of breathless panic.

I managed to hit another of my old weekly features - TGIF - in which I make somewhat random, definitely opinionated good week/bad week lists. Here's a sampling of what that looks like. The topic? Democrat Tom Suozzi's win in the race to replace George Santos.

About that loss, many House Republicans are venting their frustrations about the decision to expel Santos back in December. Ethically challenged Matt Gaetz is one of course; and so is Texas Rep. Troy Nehls, who declared "...the only way you can win elections, is that you have to get into the slop with the pigs," or at least don't kick them out of the House.

Speaking of pigs, Colorado's Rep. Ken Buck referenced the same hoofed mammal as Nehls did when he explained his 'no' vote on the Mayorkas impeachment.

You can try to put lipstick on this pig, but it's still a pig...

 The rest of that comment is important, too. 

I closed the week with a Sidebar on the TGIF. I had Jon Stewart on my good week list, for his return to the host's desk on The Daily Show.  I appreciated what he said, and how he said it, even though I had seen several critical articles about it - including one from a certain someone's famous relative. I was surprised with her take on it, and on Stewart's power.

 Lots of people, including the former president's niece, Mary Trump, were beside themselves after the show. For example, Ms. Trump tweeted  "Not only is Stewart's 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it's a potential disaster for democracy." And, she added, "I know Donald, and the media has to stop with the both sides bullshit."

She also penned an email newsletter titled Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy, in which she blamed him for low voter turnout in 2012 and 2016 - and for helping her uncle get elected. 

And just like that, you're all caught up on the latest pastiche. I hope to see you for this week's posts.

Sidebar: TGIF 2/16/24

In yesterday's TGIF, I put Jon Stewart on my good week list; here's what I said.

Jon Stewart returned to the host's chair on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, and I thought he did fine. Of course, I'm not afraid of pointing out shortcomings on the Dem side of the aisle, just as I'm not afraid of pointing them out on the aisle's other side.

While I thought his monologue was entertaining, it didn't pull any punches. 

• He talked about Biden not being able to remember things in his deposition and he showed a clip of not one, but four people named Trump not being able to recall things in their depositions;
• he blasted Biden's handlers, who aren't keeping a good handle on him, allowing him to make bad decisions, and bad appearances, like going on TikTok instead of doing the traditional Super Bowl Sunday presidential interview;
• he mocked just one of Trump's absurd statements - that Pennsylvania would change its name if he didn't win the election;
• he said Trump and Biden are "similarly challenged" age-wise, and gaffe-wise and
• he lamented that the strong, focused, on-his-game Biden that all of his staffers, appointees, and friends see is never filmed.

Lots of people, including the former president's niece, Mary Trump, were beside themselves after the show. For example, Ms. Trump tweeted  "Not only is Stewart's 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it's a potential disaster for democracy." And, she added, "I know Donald, and the media has to stop with the both sides bullshit."

She also penned an email newsletter titled Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy, in which she blamed him for low voter turnout in 2012 and 2016 - and for helping her uncle get elected. 

Mary Trump, and the many others who jumped all over Stewart for "both-side-ism," missed the real point of his monologue. I added emphasis for her, and them.

We are not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive, or even capable - but they are both stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world. What's crazy is thinking that we're the ones, as voters, who must silence concerns and criticisms. It is the candidates' job to assuage concerns, not the voters' job not to mention them.

Stewart goes out of his way to say Biden isn't Trump, and lists the many ways they are not the same, and then says

But the stakes of this election don't make Donald Trump's opponent less subject to scrutiny - it actually makes him more subject to scrutiny. And if the barbarians are at the gate, you want Conan standing on the ramparts, not "chocolate chip cookie man."

The 'chocolate cookie man' comment is not a slap at Biden per se; it's a slap at the people who kept him away from - or didn't get him into - the Super Bowl Sunday interview and instead posted a bad TikTok video. Those folks, he said, deserve to be fired. 

Stewart told us that "The next nine months or so, depending on the coup schedule - they're gonna suck." We're going to be bombarded with emails, phone calls, and more,

and it's all going to make you feel like Tuesday, November 5th is the only day that matters. And that day does matter, but man, November 6th ain't nothing to sneeze at, or November 7th. If your guy loses, bad things might happen but the country is not over, and if your guy wins, the country is in no way saved.

He continued, after admitting that the old Jon Stewart was "too glib" and "too dismissive" of the fact that

... the work of making this world resemble one that you would prefer to live in is a lunchpail fucking job day in and day out where thousands of committed anonymous smart and dedicated people bang on closed doors and pick up those that are fallen and grind away on issues until they get a positive result and even then, have to stay on to make sure that result holds. 

So, the good news is, I'm not saying you don't have to worry about who wins the election - I'm saying you have to worry about it every day before it and every day after it. For ever. Although on the plus side, I'm told that at some point, the sun will run out of hydrogen.

If Mary Trump and all the others who jumped all over Stewart had paid attention to his full monologue, they'd understand that he's not "a danger to democracy," he's promoting participation in our democracy, and he's promoting accountability on the part of people who put these candidates before us. 

Is he wrong? 

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?

Wondering on Wednesday 3/8/23

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's dive right into the wonderment, shall we? 

If you've followed me for a while, here or elsewhere on social media, you know I'm a frequent critic of media folks and publications. I don't pretend I can do their jobs better than they do; I just sometimes wish they did their jobs a little better. 

And that's how I felt reading this AP article about a "surreal Twitter exchange" between an employee and chief twit Elon Musk.

Haraldur Thorleifsson, who until recently was employed at Twitter, logged in to his computer last Sunday to do some work — only to find himself locked out, along with 200 others. 

After several days of not hearing from the company whether or not he had been fired, Thorleifsson decided that publicly engaging Musk might get him the information he was looking for. 

Eventually, he got his answer after a surreal Twitter exchange with Musk, who proceeded to quiz him about his work, question his disability and need for accommodations (Thorleifsson, who goes by “Halli,” has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheelchair) and tweet that Thorleifsson has a “prominent, active Twitter account and is wealthy” and the “reason he confronted me in public was to get a big payout.” While the exchange was going on, Thorleifsson said he received an email that he was no longer employed.

There's more to the story, and the article covers it all. Here's what I'm wondering: why write an article about a Twitter exchange, surreal or otherwise, and not include a link to the tweets? 

News is out that Walmart is closing its last two Portland, OR stores.

The closures come after Walmart CEO Doug McMillion said in 2022 that record-breaking retail theft has hit the company’s economic performance and could lead to store closures. “Theft is an issue. It’s higher than what it has historically been,” McMillion said, adding that “prices will be higher and/or stores will close” if authorities don’t crack down on shoplifting crimes.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems kind of obvious to wonder whether the company considered hiring security guards instead of greeters and employing cashiers instead of leaving it up to customers to do the work.

NY's Gov. Kathy Hochul has put forward changes to our state's bail reform law. A key change? Getting rid of  "the so-called 'least restrictive' standard for judges when considering bail." 

It's going to be a battle with her own party; "Democratic leaders have called for ways to address underlying issues surrounding crime, such as poverty, housing, and mental health," while Hochul is looking to make the law itself fairer. 

It depends on the judge and the political leanings or the philosophical leanings, or the judicial leanings of a judge versus looking at commonsense, commonly accepted criteria.

I can't help wondering why so many Dems disagree with her. After all, they're among the first to complain when people 'judge shop' to find a friendly ear for redistricting or gun control cases. Surely, the Dems know that alleged criminals don't have that chance. 

There are probably a couple million folks talking about the spate of 'anti' bills introduced by Republican legislators around the country.

One, in Florida, would ban the use of pronouns "that do not correspond with [a] person’s sex." The guy who submitted the bill said it

would enshrine the “God-given” responsibility of parents to raise their children... The bill also protects students and teachers from being forced to use language that would violate their personal convictions.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I have to wonder why we need laws designed to disregard the God-given responsibility of parents who are respectfully raising their children, and to violate the personal convictions and identities of others. 

Tennessee is trying to out-Florida Florida. A bill passed this week would 

require paid drag performers to get a permit before they can take the stage, and would specifically prevent minors from attending their shows...

I didn't have to spend a lot of time wondering how soon drag performers would start acting for free just to be able to host a show without having to go through the permitting process? And it's fun to think about the 'small government, anti-regulation' folks having the tables turned on them, isn't it?

And speaking of protecting minors, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that America's Youngest Governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R- AR), just signed a bill "loosening child labor protections" in her state. 

Under the law, the Youth Hiring Act of 2023, children under 16 do not have to obtain permission from the Division of Labor to get a job. They will no longer need to get an employment certificate, which verified their age, described their work and work schedule, and included written consent from a parent or guardian. Sanders signed the bill into law on Tuesday.

Why was this bill necessary, you might be wondering? Because requiring a permit 

had placed an "arbitrary burden on parents" who needed government permission for their child to get a job. 

If you follow all of this kid-protecting stuff, coming from the same basic political idea gene pool, you're doing better than I want to do.

What are you wondering about tonight?

In Case You Missed It (v105)

A little better week, post-wise. Here's your recap of what made it out last week. 

Your Sunday School was filled with talk about the shenanigans at Mar-a-Lago, and about student loan debt forgiveness. In the State of the Union classroom on CNN, Dana Bash talked with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) about that, which was a major theme of her presidential campaign. Here's a bit of that. 

Bash wondered about fairness, and other kinds of debt that the government isn't helping with. Warren said she thinks "a lot about fairness," before reciting her own story of going to college when a semester cost $50, getting a part-time job and being able to pay for her education. That's not the case now, where "our public education system is no longer creating opportunities" for folks without financial means.

Instead, we're saying to these young people, you have got to get an education, but we are going to wrap the chains of debt around you. And, for many, you're going to be paying it for decades into the future, including getting Social Security checks garnished. That's not the America we want.

She didn't address the 'fairness' question, and Bash noted the package doesn't do anything about the cost of education. There are "a lot of problems in the whole system," she said, and this is one tool Biden had to help. She said the Dems "have put multiple plans on the table" to deal with the other issues, but the Rs won't get on board.

I didn't research her comment about the Rs not getting on board, but given the last two years, I don't have any immediate reason to doubt her on it. 

For your Extra Credit, I decided to spend time with the panel on Fox News Sunday, where there was some discussion on President Biden's comments on extreme MAGA folks - those comments were amplified, of course, in his address on Thursday. We'll get to that a bit more in a minute.  Here are what I'll call his trial balloon, and some of the discussion.

What we're seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It's not just Trump, it's the entire philosophy that underpins - I'm going to say something, it's like semi-fascism. 

And later, he said, after calling Maryland's Gov. Larry Hogan "a Republican you can deal with,"

 We disagree, but at least he's within the mainstream of the Republican Party. I respect conservative Republicans. I don't respect these MAGA Republicans. 

Juan Williams, a panel regular, was asked how Biden's comments compared to Hillary Clinton and her 'deplorable' comments? 

Williams started with a date: January 6, 2021. Clinton's widely (and often purposefully) misconstrued statement happened before that date, and Biden's was after it. 

After January 6th, you had the reality that there were a group of people, Trump supporters, who attacked the Congress of the United States to stop the certification of a legitimate, fair election. You had people in the crowd who wanted to threaten, if not hang, Vice President Pence. You had a situation where there were Trump officials who were pressuring state officials to manufacture votes and send phony electors to the Congress of the United States. I think if people behave that way, then they can be -- they can expect to be called semi-fascist, fascist, because it's antidemocratic action. You're acting against the constitution of these United States...

There was some disagreement from others on the panel, as you might imagine. 

I was wondering, on Wednesday - but I wasn't typing, so we skipped that regular feature last week. I did manage to get a couple of #tbt posts out on Thursday, both related to topics we're still talking about now. 

The first, from 2012, was a Point/Counterpoint recapping a Facebook conversation on voter ID laws. It was short and sweet - here's the crux of it; the red and blue are indicative of the political leanings of the participants.

It sounds like Obama can't get re-elected unless he has all these people that can't prove who they are to vote for him.

Ha ha - sure sounds like Romney can't get elected without these new laws keeping people from voting... 

Funny - sad funny, not haha funny - how little things have changed in a decade, isn't it?

The second #tbt was a Quick Take on FBI transparency from 2016. Here's a bit of that.

And now? There's some additional consternation, albeit perhaps more limited, as the FBI has decided to release information from their investigation.

(September 2, 2016) the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal email server she used during her tenure. We are also releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter. We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests...

Your TGIF was untraditional, which seemed fitting given the week's news. Given the discussions on Biden's brief remarks about MAGA extremists - NOT about all Republicans, he made clear - I shared a section of his address from Independence Hall. 

But first, we must be honest with each other and with ourselves.

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.

Now, I want to be very clear -- very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. 

I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.

It's important to see his full comments in context, because the Rs and the pundits don't want you to see that: they want the soundbites, and the arguments, and the battles. And that's consistent with how they regularly behave. 

I pointed all that out in a Sidebar, with previous examples to show that it's a pretty consistent practice in those circles.  The examples were from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The former talked inelegantly about people "clinging to guns or religion" and the latter famously gave us the 'basket of deplorables." But unless you looked for it, you couldn't find the context of those remarks to understand the point they were trying to make. 

The media, which has an obligation to report the truth, and to separate news articles from opinions, didn't do a good job with either of these statements. Too often, they would report on the most inflammatory parts and, if you read the rest of the article, you could probably find a link to the entire quote. Of course, they know how few people read the entire article, right? Oh, hell - let's be honest - they know how many people read only the headline. 

The pundits, with no such obligation to the truth, blatantly ignored anything other than the most incendiary words - it was as if the rest of the quotes were not even spoken. I remember watching clips from the talk shows and the cable shows, and if anyone tried to mention the full breadth of the comments, they were shut down immediately: "Yeah, but he said..." "Yeah, but she said..."  "Yeah, but no one's going to remember that part, they're only going to remember the part that we're talking about..." "Yeah, but..."

The real villains here, in all three cases, IMO, are the Republicans who whole-heartedly embraced the soundbite, particularly Clinton's 'deplorables' comment. They owned it! They put themselves in that basket, they put their colleagues in that basket, they put their donors in that basket, they put their constituents in that basket, and they put everyone who voted for any Republican in that basket. 

And just like back then, the Rs are going overboard again, broadly painting themselves with an industrial sprayer, when the comments were wielded with six-inch-brush. 

And so it goes, as Linda Ellerbee used to say.

Have a good week.

Sunday School 6/5/22: Extra Credit

I'm switching gears from your Sunday School lesson on people trying to do something about gun murders, to people trying to do something about the January 6th insurrection... let's dive into this week's Extra Credit.

Jake Tapper had former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) in the State of the Union classroom. He worked as an advisor to the House January 6th Committee for several months, leaving at the end of April to focus on helping Ukraine.

Before we get into his interview, the Committee is unhappy with Riggleman's appearances on CNN, as Politico noted last Friday. After one interview last week, the Committee's staff director sent an email regarding an "unauthorized" interview. Per the article, the email said Riggleman's appearance was "in direct contravention to his employment agreement."  And, of course, Riggleman "sharply disagreed" with that portrayal.

So, in the interest of not piling on to the Committee's dismay, I'll limit my excerpts to Riggleman's exuberance and personal opinions, and omit anything that could be remotely sensitive.

He said that the hearings are "going to be very concise," and "very exciting," and

...I think people are going to be absolutely surprised how much was known... And I think that's what's going to be exciting to see the committee. There's some very talented investigators behind the doors, and even with our teams and things like that and what they found, but, again, the investigators going through the thousands of interviews that they have and all the data and the videos.

I think -- I do think they're going to be very successful in those six -- I think in those six hearings.

And, he has hopes for the rest of us.

... the American people have to look at this from the beginning, take their notes, and understand that the committee has to build a case in a very solid, facts-based way. There's not going to be a lot of partisan whining or screaming. The investigators behind the door are nonpartisan individuals. They're going to present this case in a very cogent way. But the American people need to -- they need to take notes.

Tapper pressed on whether there's some kind of orange-haired smoking gun here. The only part I can comfortably repeat is that Riggleman said there were multiple groups looking at more data than he'd ever seen before - "it's absolutely incredible" - and that the Committee has to put it all together and that's what makes it exciting, and the "talent behind the door" made all of this possible, or something.

He agrees with Rep. Liz Cheney (R- stands for Real Republican) that the GOP has become a personality cult, not a party, and said he doesn't consider himself a Republican anymore. What he saw during his time with the Committee

has even pushed me further away, that the party has moved away from conservative principles to this cult of personality that Liz Cheney is talking about. She's absolutely correct. And when you see it behind the door... it's absolutely stunning, that cult of personality, but also the belief systems, that I don't think any real conservative could follow at any point. It's absolutely insane what people have sort of put their arms around. 

I can't agree more with that assessment, even without peeking behind the door. 

Down the hall, Margaret Brennan spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation. Schiff, you'll recall, was involved in both Trump impeachments, and is a member of the January 6th Committee. 

On the DOJ not charging Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Schiff said it is "very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two" the DOJ decided to prosecute (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro). 

These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6th, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a, I think, a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.

He also said there's plenty of stuff they could have testified about that wouldn't come close to executive privilege - things about the campaign, relevant documents and the like.

None of which is protected by privilege. And the idea that you can simply refuse to show up, rather than show up and say, as to this question I'm going to assert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country in other courtrooms. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

Schiff said he wouldn't comment on any specific witnesses or testimony, but did say

...one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of his big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president's base was likely to lead to violence. 

OrangeVerse LXI: A Week of Spam

For some time, I've subscribed to Trump emails on a secondary email account. All of the emails - and there are a LOT of them - go to my spam folder, and every now and then I nose around to see what's on his mind. 

The emails come from a variety of addresses. In this latest barrage of requests for money, President Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., DonaldJTrump.com, Team Trump, and Trump Dinner Alert all sent at least one email.

Today, I realized there's a certain odd poetry to the subject lines of these emails.  And so, we have today's OrangeVerse: a Week of Spam. 

Apr 12

15 Patriots 

 

Apr 13

My father chose YOU

 

 Apr 14

This has NEVER. HAPPENED. BEFORE.

Do you want to be a Trump MVP? Offer valid for 1 hour

 Invitation for YOU 

Here's your winner...

 

Apr 15

Pending

 You're on the list

I want you to know how important you are to me

 I endorsed Sarah Palin

Sad

Offer: available

 

Apr 16

Chicken or steak?

We EXTENDED your 7X-IMPACT

I have something special for you

3000% MORE

 

Apr 17

You're 1 out of 100

Dinner?

I've unlocked an exclusive DOUBLE ENTRY

LIMITED EDITION

 

Apr 18

Join NOW

I have a TOP SECRET video message for you

My father is about to release a never-bef0re-seen video message

Your wallet needs this

NEVER. HAPPENED. BEFORE.

Contribution status: PENDING

My contribution status will remain 'PENDING' - as will my membership status. I received more than two dozen emails on that, including nine telling me it was my last chance to renew my expired membership. They are relentless, I tell you.

Relentless - and effective. Politico reports that

Trump's Save America PAC crossed $110 million in the bank at the end of February, after taking in $3.5 million during the month and spending just $1.2 million.

That is more money than both national political parties - the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee - have combined in their main bank account...

And, to no one's surprise I'm sure,

Trump has done little to spend his largesse around the party. The committee did not report any new donations or independent expenditures backing Trump-endorsed candidates. 

What poetry are you finding these days? Drop a comment, if you like. 

Quick Takes(v59): GOP Pride, Swallowed (Again)

Remember last week when it was reported that former president Donald Trump had ordered the 'official' Republicans - the RNC, the NRCC and the NRSC- to stop using his name and likeness in their communications?

According to an article in Politico, The Donald was "furious that his name has been bandied about by organizations that help Republicans who voted to impeach him - without his permission." However, an advisor made clear,

...Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn't give anyone - friend or foe - permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.

Well, the RNC responded, telling Trump's lawyer that it

 has every right to refer to public figures as it engages in core, First Amendment-protected political speech. 

Not only that, but the attorney said that Trump had 'reaffirmed' with Ronna McDaniel that it was OK for the RNC to use his name to raise money - which the organization did on Sunday, in an email urging supporters to "DEFEND President Trump's America First policies."

Then, we learn from the WaPo that the RNC will hold an event at Mar-a-Lago next month when it brings big donors to Florida, instead of at a hotel as originally scheduled. Trump will speak at the dinner, while others, including Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis (he came in second in the CPAC straw poll), and former Secretary of BS Mike Pompeo will speak at the hotel.

The RNC will pay to rent the club and for the meals; that's typical for events like this. It's almost required to get Trump to appear. When he was president, the chances of getting his participating increased if the event was at one of his properties, where he'd make money off his supporters while accepting their adoration.

According to HuffPo, "That type of self-serving arrangement had become somewhat standard the Trump era, with his properties collecting some $10.5 million from various political and campaign funds.

 Grifters gotta grift, you know.

But what - there's more! Late last night,  Former Guy sent a direct message to his supporters. In it, slammed the Rs for supporting people who don't support him - the RINOS, he called them (adding an S to the acronym) - and asking that his real supporters send money to him, not to the RNC. He used that same tactic to raise millions for his alleged legal defense fund.

As one Twitter user noted, "this whole suicide pact could not be more explicit."

It's hard to imagine that the RNC could debase themselves any more than this - paying Trump for the privilege of having him bash their members, and then standing back and standing by as he tries to gut their fundraising efforts - but I suspect they'll find a way. They always do.

Sunday School 11/22/20: Extra Credit

Last week, I said that many GOP officials were "weaselly scaredy cats" for not standing up to the president's assault on our election systems and processes. 

In yesterday's Sunday School, I quoted Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who said that we're "beginning to look like a banana republic" and that

I just don't think that there are a lot of profiles in courage, frankly... I mean - we all know how vindictive the president can be, how powerful his Twitter account is, and how he can really pressure Republicans and go after them. Very few of us are willing to stand up.

In yesterday's This Week classroom, former NJ Gov. Chris Christie took his stand, more firmly than he had immediately after the election. Here's his exchange with George Stephanopoulos, who opened the door for Christie.

And Chris, let me begin with you. I remember well, in the hours after president Trump's speech on -- early Wednesday morning, the day after the election, you said it's incumbent on him to come forward with the evidence. There have now been 34 court cases the president has lost. We saw Pennsylvania last night. We saw Pat Toomey, the senator from Pennsylvania, say it's time for the president to enable this transition; it's time for the president to concede. The president's response was to attack Pat Toomey on Twitter. Is it finally time for this to end?

Christie was clear in his response -- and it's what every Republican should be saying. 

Yes, and -- and here's the reason why. The president has had an opportunity to access the courts. And I said to you, you know, George, starting at 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning, if you've got the evidence of fraud, present it. And what's happened here is, quite frankly, the content that the president's legal team has been a national embarrassment, Sidney Powell accusing Governor Brian Kemp of a crime on television, yet being unwilling to go on TV and defend and lay out the evidence that she supposedly has.

This is outrageous conduct by any lawyer. And notice, George, they won't do it inside the courtroom. They allege fraud outside the courtroom, but when they go inside the courtroom, they don't plead fraud and they don't argue fraud. This is what I was concerned about at 2:30 in the morning on Wednesday night. Listen, I've been a supporter of the president's. I voted for him twice. But elections have consequences, and we cannot continue to act as if something happened here that didn't happen.

You have an obligation to present the evidence. The evidence has not been presented. And you must conclude, as Tucker Carlson even concluded the other night, that if you're unwilling to come forward and present the evidence, it must mean the evidence doesn't exist. That's what I was concerned about starting on election night, and I remain concerned today.

I think it's wrong. I think what you've heard lots of Republicans starting to say this; I said it on election night; and I hope more say it going forward. Because the country is what has to matter the most. As much as I'm a strong Republican and I love my party, it's the country that has to come first.

Heck, author John Bolton took a stand. I am no fan of his, but even he managed to find a dollop of conviction, now that his book's out and he's no longer under Trump's thumb. Bolton spoke with Jake Tapper in the CNN SOTU classroom. 

In response to Tapper's question on whether this is "essentially a nonviolent attempted coup," here's what Bolton had to say.

I think that gives Trump too much credit. I think he's just playing for time, in hopes that something will emerge that allows him either to have a good reason why he's lost or, in his mind, maybe still to win. But I think that simply emphasizes the need for senior Republican leaders to join those who have begun to come out and say Trump's behavior is inexcusable.

Look, the Republican Party is not going to be saved by hiding in a spider hole. We need all of our leaders to come out and say the election is over. We're not talking about an abstract right to use -- for Trump to use his legal remedies. We have passed that. We're three weeks after the election. He doesn't have any evidence. He doesn't have any legal theories. 

Look, for those who are worried about Trump's reaction, there's strength in numbers. The more who come out and say, he doesn't represent us, he is not following a Republican game plan here, the safer they will be.

He also said of Republicans,

Well, I don't think we are a bunch of cowards, but I do think it's a character test, which is why people have to speak up. The longer Trump rambles through our electoral system causing damage without Republican opposition, the more the Democrats are going to say that it is a Republican Party characteristic, and that you can't trust them with the instruments of government. I think, if we have -- people don't have to say what Trump's doing is outrageous. Just say it's wrong. I will be satisfied with that.

I think it's very important for everybody to understand that, at noon on the 20th of January, Donald Trump is no longer president. The dynamic changes enormously. I'm not saying he's going to disappear. That's, unfortunately, not going to happen...

But it's not the same as his -- him being able, as he did on Friday, to haul people into the Oval and put pressure on them. That's all going to be gone. You can -- you can say what you think without worrying about a Trump Twitter rant that will just be a bunch of damp squibs by that point. And that's what people need to understand. Far better to start that process now than to wait for him to cause more damage.

Yes -- it would be far better to not allow him to cause more damage - it's easy to agree with him on that, as much as I find agreeing with him disagreeable.  

For your Extra Credit, I ask you to take a stand, too. Write, call or email your elected officials, regardless of party, and tell them what you think about this. Send a letter to your local paper, TV station, radio station - wherever you can find a platform to make your voice heard. Social media is just as good as any of the traditional media outlets. 

Don't let the president do any more damage.  

See you around campus. Wear your mask, and please, honor whatever regulations are in place where you are.