The Conversation -- December 3, 2024
Marie: I guess this is what can happen when Trump accidentally nominates someone who might be a decent guy: ~~~
Alejandra Jeramillo & Jack Forrest of CNN: “Chad Chronister, a Florida sheriff, has withdrawn from consideration as ... Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration, he announced Tuesday. 'Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I’ve concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration,' Chronister, the sheriff of Hillsborough County, posted on X.... The Trump transition team declined to comment. Trump’s choice of Chronister had received backlash from the MAGA corner of the Republican Party, some of whom took to social media to lambast the sheriff. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky criticized Trump’s selection in a post on X on Sunday, saying the sheriff 'should be disqualified' over his enforcement of Covid-19 protocols. Reacting to Chronister’s withdrawal Tuesday, Massie said in a separate post that he was 'glad to see him withdraw from consideration.' There was also a belief among some allies of the president-elect that Chronister was not a true Republican, let alone a Trump loyalist. It is not clear whether this pushback to his selection led to him withdrawing his name.”
~~~ Marie: I was wondering how Trump happened to choose Chronister in the first place, and I'd guess this is it: fromthe CNN report: “Chronister’s wife, Nicole DeBartolo, is the daughter of former San Francisco 49ers owner Edward DeBartolo Jr. During his first term, Trump granted Chronister’s father-in-law a presidential pardon after he pleaded guilty in 1998 to failing to report a felony in a bribery case, which led to former Louisiana Gov. Edwin W. Edwards’ federal prison sentence.” So Chronister is not a celebrity; but he's related to one who's been in trouble with the law. Good enough.
⭐South Korea. Jack Kim & Ju-Min Park of Reuters: “President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Tuesday night, creating the most serious challenge to South Korea's democracy since the 1980s as lawmakers rejected the move in a vote and protesters gathered outside parliament. Yoon's declaration, which he cast as aimed at his political foes, was vocally opposed by the speaker of parliament and even the leader of Yoon's own party, Han Dong-hoon, who has clashed with the president over his handling of recent scandals. Under South Korean law, the president must immediately lift martial law if parliament demands it by a majority vote. Live television footage showed helmeted troops apparently tasked with imposing martial law attempting to enter the National Assembly building. Parliamentary aides were seen trying to push the soldiers back by spraying fire extinguishers. Yoon said in a TV broadcast that opposition parties had taken the parliamentary process hostage. He vowed to eradicate 'shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces' and said he had no choice but to take the measure to safeguard constitutional order.” Thanks to RAS for the link. ~~~
~~~ The New York Times is liveblogging developments here. CNN is live-updating developments here.
David Pierson, et al., of the New York Times: “China said on Tuesday that it would begin banning the export of several rare minerals to the United States, an escalation of the tech war between the world’s two biggest powers. The move comes a day after the Biden administration tightened Chinese access to advanced American technology. The ban signals Beijing’s willingness to engage in supply chain warfare by blocking the export of important components used to make valuable products, like weaponry and semiconductors. Sales of gallium, germanium, antimony and so-called superhard materials to the United States would be halted immediately on the grounds that they have dual military and civilian uses, China’s Ministry of Commerce said. The export of graphite would also be subject to stricter review.”
Donald Trump, International Diplomat. James Liddell of the Independent: “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau joined Trump for dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, on Friday, for what Trump called a 'very productive' three-hour dinner between the two leaders. Sources told Fox News that, during the dinner, Trump joked that there is a way around the looming [taxes Trump planned to impose on our closest neighbor and ally]: Canada becoming America’s 51st state. Trudeau, among others at the meeting, responded to the quip with nervous laughter, the sources said.” MB: At least he was going to pay for Greenland; Canada, he'll merely threaten into oblivion.
Heather Cox Richardson on Substack: “... Jane Mayer of the New Yorker reported that Trump’s choice for secretary of defense, Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth, had been forced to leave previous leadership positions at the advocacy groups Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America because of serious allegations of 'financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.' Under his direction, Veterans for Freedom ran up huge debt for what appears to have been inappropriate expenses; the group’s donors squeezed Hegseth out of his job and then shuttered the organization. He moved to Concerned Veterans for America. A whistleblower for Concerned Veterans for America reported that Hegseth was repeatedly so drunk at events that he had to be carried out, and that he once tried to join dancers on stage at a strip club to which he brought his work team. Their report said that Hegseth and other members of his team ... sexually pursued [female staffers], leading to allegations of sexual assault. Another complaint said that at a bar in the early hours of May 29, 2015, Hegseth began to chant drunkenly: 'Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!' An email from one of the whistleblowers ... detailed Hegseth’s 'history of alcohol abuse' and said he had 'treated the organization funds like they were a personal expense account — for partying, drinking, and using CVA events as little more than opportunities to “hook up” with women on the road.'” ~~~
~~~ Richardson goes on to discuss Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter. Besides running down a list of the usual reasons to favor the pardon as well as blaming the media for their double standard, Richardson writes, “As legal commentator Asha Rangappa noted: 'People criticizing the Hunter Biden pardon need to recognize: For the 1st time, the FBI and Justice Department could literally fabricate evidence, or collaborate with a foreign government to “find” evidence of a “crime,” with zero accountability. That’s why the pardon goes back to 2014.'” Thanks to Ken W. for the link. ~~~
~~~ Marie: Read Richardson's post because she covers a number of points I haven't seen elsewhere. Richardson herself does not specifically endorse the pardon, but her explanation as to why it was necessary is compelling. Nonetheless -- with the exception of Trump's horrifying appointments of Gaetz & Patel -- everything she reports in this regard is old news. Some of it is very old news. Yet Joe Biden himself said in June 2024 (after Hunter was found guilty in his first trial), and his team said even after the November election that he would not pardon Hunter. Why was that??? Joe Biden knew full well what Trump was capable of and reportedly his team's own internal polling going all the way back to this past summer showed that Trump would win the election. The more I dig into the nitty-gritty of it, the more I move from "disappointed" to "angry" at Joe Biden's behavior.
~~~~~~~~~~
Katie Rogers & Glenn Thrush of the New York Times: “Support for pardoning Hunter Biden had been building for months within the [Biden] family, but external forces had more recently weighed on Mr. Biden, who watched warily as ... Donald J. Trump picked loyalists for his administration who promised to bring political and legal retribution to Mr. Trump’s enemies. Mr. Biden had ... invited Mr. Trump to the White House, listening without responding as the president-elect aired familiar grievances about the Justice Department — then surprised his host by sympathizing with the Biden family’s own troubles with the department, according to three people briefed on the conversation. But it was Hunter Biden’s looming sentencings on federal gun and tax charges, scheduled for later this month, that gave Mr. Biden the final push.... Mr. Biden’s decision has tarnished a storied public legacy....
“Hunter Biden was hardly shy about telling the people around him that he wanted — needed — a pardon, although it is unclear how often he had discussed the matter directly with his father before this past week.... The final discussions about pardons excluded senior White House staff, including only the Bidens and defense lawyers. After the decision was made, aides were told to execute their orders, according to a person familiar with the situation.” ~~~
Whether our nominee was the vice president or someone else, we would have had a much better chance to defeat Donald Trump.... His decision to pardon his son, no matter how unconditional his love, feels like another instance of putting his personal interest ahead of his responsibility to the country It further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all. -- Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), one of the more thoughtful & least judgmental Democratic senators ~~~
~~~ Peter Baker of the New York Times: “Now, in the desultory final days of his administration, [President] Biden finds himself repudiated, even by some of his fellow Democrats, as the president who refused to step aside until it was too late, paved the way for Mr. Trump’s return to power and, in a final gesture of personal grievance over stated principle, pardoned his own son for multiple felony convictions. The disappointment and frustration expressed by his own supporters since Mr. Biden intervened to spare his son Hunter from prison and any future investigations captured the disenchantment of many Democrats with the outgoing president as the end draws near.... The decision to attack the credibility of the justice system to safeguard a relative aggravated admirers who sympathized with his plight as a father yet were shocked that he would break his own promise to respect the courts’ decision.... Mr. Biden is sliding toward the end of his presidency in lackluster fashion.” ~~~
~~~ Marie: It is worth bearing in mind that throughout his long public career, Joe Biden has often put his own interests before those of the country. Sometimes his self-interest was understandable, even laudable. Sometimes not so much. Even before he took the oath of office as senator, he decided not to fulfill his obligation to serve because of the sudden death of his wife and daughter and the severe injuries to both of his sons. He plagiarizes a lot, most infamously in his shortlived presidential campaign of 1987-88. He has always lied and exaggerated hos own supposed heroism. He mistreated Anita Hill, giving us Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. This was one time Joe did keep his promises -- to White segregationist Southern senators. And of course he ran for president this year when (1) every poll showed he was extremely unpopular, and (2) those close to him knew he was losing it. So doing something that will make him more popular with the people who will be his primary caregivers over the next years fits well into his lifelong pattern of self-service. ~~~
~~~ Maya Miller of the New York Times: “Many Democratic lawmakers, particularly progressives, have defended [President] Biden’s move as the justified action of a concerned father who fears that ... Donald J. Trump will abuse his power to follow through on his threats to seek retribution against his rivals. But others, especially moderate members of Congress, said the president’s decision to pardon Hunter Biden — which he repeatedly vowed he would not do — would cause further damage to democratic norms.” Miller reports a number of comments from prominent Democrats. Politico's report is here. An AP report is here. ~~~
This is not a corrupt pardon. It’s about taking care of a family member knowing what Trump will do otherwise. -- Prof. Kimberly Wehle of the University of Baltimore, in an email to the New York Times ...
~~~ Kenneth Vogel of the New York Times: The “sweeping amnesty [President Biden accorded his son Hunter] is raising awkward historical comparisons and sharp questions about the use of presidential clemency. It also has inflamed a debate about who deserves mercy and for what, while underscoring the Biden family’s concerns about Hunter Biden’s vulnerability to prosecution related to his foreign business activities.... 'It is extraordinarily hazardous to use the pardon power in a case where the person is an intimate of the president,' said Aziz Z. Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Mr. Huq ... said President Biden’s pardon of his son 'really does strike at the rule of law.'... Hunter Biden had yet to be sentenced, let alone to serve any time, so he would not have qualified for a recommendation from the [DOJ's Office of the Pardon Attorney, which vets and recommends to the president candidates for clemency], and it does not appear as if he applied for one.... Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore..., said in an email that it was Mr. Trump — not President Biden — who initiated 'the norm-violating behavior' by pledging to use the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies.” ~~~
~~~ A Blueprint for Trump. Kyle Cheney & Betsy Swan of Politico: “In his sweeping pardon of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden did not just protect his son. He also handed ... Donald Trump a template to shield his own allies and stretch the pardon power even further. Legal experts say Trump now has fresh precedent — and political cover — to issue expansive pardons absolving his allies not only of specific offenses, but even any undetermined crimes they may have committed.... The younger Biden is now effectively cleared of legal consequences for any federal law he might have broken over a nearly 11-year period. Those terms are so unusual — and the process leading to it was so secretive — that the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney ... was taken by surprise.... In the final days of Trump’s first term, at least one close ally — former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — requested a similarly sweeping pardon, according to congressional testimony. But top White House aides made clear it was a nonstarter.... Almost immediately after the Hunter Biden pardon was announced, Trump hinted that he may cite it as justification for granting broad clemency to Jan. 6 defendants.” ~~~
~~~ There was a good deal of back-and-forth in yesterday's Comments about President Biden's pardon of his wayward son Hunter. Nearly everyone disagreed with me; that is, they thought the pardon was cool. The best argument for the pardon, IMO (yet not convincing, of course), was Jeanne's: she's just pissed off at the vindictive Trumpy creeps, so screw them. Rational arguments were expressed, to be sure; I just don't think they hold up against counterarguments. ~~~
~~~ Scott Lemieux in LG&$ expresses a view similar to Jeanne's: “The idea that Republicans need a 'precedent' to do whatever they want or that the choices Biden makes will affect Trump’s decisionmaking in any way is absurd. Trump pardoned a wealthy in-law who was guilty of more serious crimes and made him the announced nominee to be Ambassador to France earlier this week. And of course Trump pardoned many cronies and co-conspirators who committed crimes other people might actually be prosecuted for.... Indeed, if there’s any precedent of material consequence here here it’s Trump paying no political or criminal price for his unprecedented corruption and abuse of power. Democratic politicians wondering why they should be the only suckers left at the table is for better or worse going to be a predictable outcome of the normalization of Trump and his re-election.”
~~~ If you want to read the gory details of of the political prosecution of Hunter Biden, here's a very, very long white paper (the summary runs to nearly nine pages) by Hunter's attorneys at Winston & Strawn. Via Marcy Wheeler. Bear in mind that the authors have an obvious bias, one that is indeed dictated by legal ethics. Nonetheless, it would be the height of stupid to pretend the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden was not poliitically-motivated. ~~~
~~~ Marcy Wheeler: “In the face of seeing Pam Bondi and Kash Patel preparing to redouble efforts to find politicized prosecutions against Donald Trump’s adversaries, Joe Biden chose to end the process, with his son, at least. I’m actually on the record opposing the pardon — but not for the reasons everyone else is.... I oppose the pardon because it eliminates Hunter’s standing to appeal and with those appeals to begin telling the story that the media chose to ignore.... I think Biden fucked this one up. Not just for saying he wouldn’t pardon Hunter, but for not taking action far earlier — like firing David Weiss the day he was inaugurated, citing Trump’s first impeachment, or pardoning Hunter and firing Weiss on November 6 — to do something about this. I think Merrick Garland shouldn’t have given Weiss himself SCO status (not least, because Weiss continues to investigate crimes — the alleged attempted framing of Joe Biden by Alexander Smirnov — to which he is a witness). I think Garland’s supervision of Special Counsels allowed the abuse of the system, repeatedly.... Because the press has unquenchable thirst for lazy dick pic sniffing, they don’t do the work of reading the court filings. Because the press thirsts for a false appearance of both sides neutrality, they’re always on the hunt for something to fit into their both sides scandal box.” Thanks to RAS for the link. ~~~
~~~ Marie: And let me just say I am grateful to Wheeler for reminding us that the political prosecution of the son of his boss is one more thing Merrick Garland engineered. Garland is the worst attorney general since, well, Bill Barr. ~~~
~~~ Look for the Silver Lining. Eric Levitz, now of Vox: “... it is not hard to understand Biden’s hypocrisy.... I suspect most fathers in his shoes would do as he has done. But Biden ... is, for a few more weeks anyway, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. And this pardon does his co-partisans no favors. To the contrary, it reinforces the narrative that Democrats’ ostensible horror at Trump’s use of public power for private benefit is sanctimonious posturing.... Fortunately, Democrats now have the opportunity to demonstrate the sincerity of their ideals, while also mitigating one of their party’s greatest political liabilities — all by simply loudly and uniformly condemning Biden’s pardon as an abuse of power.... The president’s extraordinary unpopularity has weighed on Democrats for years now.... Democrats face little imperative to protect Biden’s brand.... In pardoning Hunter, Biden has given both his son and his party a chance for a new beginning. Democrats should seize it.” ~~~
~~~ digby: “All of our remonstrating about how Biden was pure and [Trump] is evil would have meant absolutely nothing unless we all want to see Hunter martyred over this nonsense just to prove a point (which woulodn’t be proven anyway.) Meanwhile, Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are on record saying they would go after Hunter Biden and the rest of the 'Biden Crime Family' with everything they have. It’s probably a good idea to take that seriously right now.” Thanks to gonzo for the link. ~~~
~~~ Robert Reich on Substack: “The pardoning power was never supposed to be a means for presidents to put themselves, their families, members of their administration, and campaign staff above the law. Yet that’s precisely what it has become. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, on old drug charges. George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others in his administration on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair. As the framers of the Constitution saw it, the pardoning power was supposed to be a safety valve against injustice. The origins of the power in the United States Constitution are found in the 'prerogative of mercy' that originally appeared during the reign of King Ine of Wessex in the seventh century....
“Representative Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee’s 9th District, has repeatedly introduced just such an amendment, which would prohibit a self-pardon and pardons of family members, administration officials, and campaign employees. It would also bar the president from issuing pardons to those whose crimes were committed to further a direct and significant personal interest of the president or others close to him or her, and those whose crimes were committed at the direction of, or in coordination with, the president.” ~~~
~~~ Tom Nichols of the Atlantic: This pardon was “a tremendous strategic blunder, one that will haunt Democrats as they head into the first years of another Trump administration.... Had Biden not pardoned his son, elected Republicans at every level ... would have had to say, on the record, whether they agreed with Trump letting people who stormed the Capitol and assaulted law-enforcement officers out of jail.... The vulnerable Republicans running for reelection might have pleaded with him to avoid some of the more potentially disgusting pardons. Forget all that. Joe Biden has now provided every Republican ... with a ready-made heat shield against any criticism about Trump’s pardons, past or present.... Even worse, he has inadvertently given power to Trump’s narrative about the unreliability of American institutions.... Joe Biden could have waited until Hunter was sentenced for his federal crimes later this month and then commuted his punishments while fashioning a more limited pardon for other issues. ~~~
~~~ Marie: This is a gift link from laura h. She has given you the opportunity to read the whole essay, so I urge you to do so. For those of you who disagree with Nichols (most of you, I gather), you will be happy to know he is a conservative, so he's probably written plenty you and I would challenge. ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Chait of the Atlantic: “President Biden’s complaint about the higher standard applied to his son reflects the perspective of myopic privilege. Crimes by family members of powerful public officials are far more damaging to public confidence than similar crimes by anonymous people. Holding them to account through strict enforcement of the law is good and correct. What the president fails to note in his self-pitying statement is that Hunter Biden for years engaged in legal but wildly inappropriate behavior by running a business based on selling the perception of access to his father.... Joe Biden’s defense of Hunter’s influence peddling by stressing its narrow legality merely serves to highlight the hypocrisy of his fatherly indulgence.... With the pardon decision, like his stubborn insistence on running for a second term he couldn’t win, Biden chose to prioritize his own feelings over the defense of his country.” Thanks to laura h. for this gift link. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: Whatever you think of this pardon, it's nearly impossible to refute Chait's arguments. What Biden conveniently forgot, and what criminals like Trump never consider, is what Julius Caesar said: that his wife must be above suspicion. It isn't just the wife; it's the relatives in general. A person certainly cannot control what his relatives do, and he can forgive them for their bad behavior for their sake and his own. But to issue a public pardon, to ensure that the relative will not face the consequences of his unlawful behavior, and to hold that relative to be above the law for whatever lame excuse or valid reason, is quite a different matter. To break one's own oath in doing so only magnifies the error in judgment. ~~~
~~~ John Dean Has an Idea. Ed Mazza of the Huffington Post: “John Dean, the former White House counsel who helped bring down President Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, urged President Joe Biden to go further with his pardons.... Dean ... urged Biden to issue blanket pardons to everyone ... Donald Trump has vowed to target when he returns to the White House next month [as well as to Trump himself].” ~~~
~~~ Marie: I did mention in yesterday's Comments the possibility of Trump & his lackeys arranging for the execution of Hunter Biden, but I didn't suggest seriously that it was a possibility. Perhaps I should have: ~~~
~~~ Steve M: "On the subject of the Hunter Biden pardon, I don't think we should dismiss this theory: [Jim "Not a Football Presenter" White wrote on Bluesky,] 'After spending some time wondering what could have tipped the balance leading to the Hunter Biden pardon, I finally started to think that the fascists may have been planning to use Hunter as their first ginned-up treason charge followed by execution.'... I won't be surprised if Trump, Patel, and Attorney General Pam Bondi try to bring President Biden up on treason charges, now that Hunter appears to be out of their reach. Right-wingers ... believe both Bidens were cashing in, and selling America out to China and Ukraine.”
Minho Kim of the New York Times: “Warren Stephens, an investment banker and billionaire who donated to ... Donald J. Trump’s rivals before eventually supporting him in the 2024 race, was tapped as Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Britain on Monday. The selection of Mr. Stephens for the ambassadorship, a plum posting that often goes to one of the largest donors to a presidential campaign, was in part a nod to the American Opportunity Alliance, a big-money network of Republican donors in which Mr. Stephens plays a leadership role. Mr. Trump and the alliance had a tense relationship at times over the course of his campaign.”
All the Things Kash Patel Said He Would Do to Destroy and Abuse the FBI. Elizabeth Williamson & Charlie Savage of the New York Times: “'Fire the top ranks of the F.B.I.' Encourage Congress to demand testimony exposing 'every single bit of filth and corruption' at the agency, and withhold its funding 'until the documents come in.' Prosecute leakers and journalists. Replace the national security work force with 'people who won’t undermine the president’s agenda.' These are among a long list of changes Kash Patel recommended in his 2023 book, 'Government Gangsters.'... Charles Kupperman, deputy national security adviser during the first Trump administration, warned that Mr. Patel’s ideas would be anathema to the F.B.I.’s mission. 'The irony of this is that they all complained about the politicization of the F.B.I., and here Trump is putting in someone who’s going to do just that,' Mr. Kupperman said in an interview. 'These are not reforms, they are punitive measures from a guy trying to be the enforcer for Trump.'... Mr. Patel would be well positioned to help carry out new investigations [into Donald Trump's political adversaries]....
“Mr. Patel has either threatened or filed defamation lawsuits against The New York Times, CNN and Politico for what he wrote was 'all the manifold lies they told about me while I worked at the White House.' So far he has not been successful.But he has not been deterred.... Mr. Patel has also ... said that leakers should be prosecuted.... n a September 2024 podcast, he declared that he would close the F.B.I.’s Washington headquarters and disperse the officials who work there to other parts of the country.... Mr. Patel called in his book for weakening civil service job protections for tens of thousands of career officials.”
Peter Eavis & Jack Ewing of the New York Times: “A Delaware judge on Monday affirmed an earlier ruling that rescinded a giant pay package that Tesla had awarded its chief executive, Elon Musk. The pay, in the form of stock options, was worth more than $50 billion and helped make Mr. Musk the richest person in the world. The package is now worth $100 billion after Tesla’s share price jumped sharply in recent weeks. The judge, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery, struck down the award in January, ruling that shareholders had not been properly informed of its details and that members of Tesla’s board were not sufficiently independent. But lawyers for Tesla and Mr. Musk argued that a second shareholder vote in June in favor of the package cleared the way for effectively reinstating it.” The story goes into the details of the dispute.
Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post: “The Senate on Monday confirmed an Army general’s promotion to four-star officer after a Republican senator dropped the freeze on his nomination in the wake of backlash from retired military officers and some former Trump administration officials. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) had placed a hold last month on the nomination of Lt. Gen. Christopher Donahue, who was on the ground during the evacuation of Afghanistan, to become a four-star general and the top commander at U.S. Army Europe.President Joe Biden nominated Donahue for the promotion, and the hold could have upended the general’s career depending on how long it was extended. It came after ... Donald Trump pledged for months to fire any senior officer associated with the fall of Afghanistan.... Among those who backed Donahue are former defense secretary Mark T. Esper.... Retired Gen. Tony Thomas, a former head of U.S. Special Operations Command, last month called the hold a 'disgrace.'”
“I Forgot.” Mariana Alfaro of the Washington Post: “A House Democratic staffer was arrested and charged Monday after entering the U.S. Capitol with rounds of ammunition, according to the Capitol Police. The staffer, identified as 38-year-old Michael Hopkins, was stopped by officers Monday morning while going through routine security screening as he entered the Cannon House Office Building and officers noticed 'what appeared to be ammunition on the x-ray screen.'... [According to a police statement,] 'The staffer told the officers that he forgot the ammunition was in the bag.'”
~~~~~~~~~~
Kansas. Kate Christobek of the New York Times: “A former Kansas police detective who had been accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting two women over several years while on duty was found dead on Monday, the first day of his trial on federal civil rights charges. Roger Golubski, 71, died of a fatal gunshot wound at his home in Edwardsville, west of Kansas City, Kan., according to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. The police had responded to a 911 call reporting the sound of a gunshot and found Mr. Golubski dead on his back porch, the bureau said, adding that there were no signs of foul play.... Mr. Golubski, [who is White and] who retired from the Police Department in Kansas City, Kan., in 2010 after 35 years on the force, had long been suspected of raping and terrorizing Black women as he patrolled the streets.”
Wisconsin. Mitch Smith of the New York Times: “A Wisconsin judge on Monday struck down portions of a 2011 law that stripped most government workers in the state of collective bargaining rights and set off fierce demonstrations. The ruling by Judge Jacob Frost of the Dane County Circuit Court is certain to be appealed. But his decision provided at least a temporary victory to labor unions and Democrats in Wisconsin, who turned out by the thousands to protest the law more than a decade ago and who have been trying ever since to take it off the books.... Republicans ... advanced the legislation despite large-scale protests at the State Capitol in Madison and an attempt by Democratic lawmakers to scuttle the vote by fleeing to Illinois.” Thanks to Ken W. for the link.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine, et al. One President at a Time, Ha Ha. Ephrat Livni of the New York Times: “... Donald J. Trump on Monday demanded that the hostages taken in the Hamas-led attack on Israel be released from Gaza before his inauguration in January, or there will be 'hell to pay' in the Middle East for those responsible. Writing on Truth Social, and without naming any militant group, Mr. Trump said in his post: 'If the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East, and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against Humanity. Those responsible will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW!'” ~~~
~~~ Marie: Pardon my cynicism, but Bibi must have told Donald he was about to agree to a hostage deal, so Trump is doing this in order to take credit for release of the hostages.
Ukraine, et al. John Ismay of the New York Times: “The Pentagon will send Ukraine an additional $725 million in military assistance from its stockpiles, including anti-personnel land mines, drones, portable antiaircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles. In a statement, the Pentagon said on Monday that the shipment was part of a surge in security aid as Ukraine battles a renewed Russian offensive. The new support comes amid deep concerns in Ukraine that the incoming Trump administration might cut off military aid to the country. President-elect Donald J. Trump has vowed to end the war quickly, though he has not said how. But ... JD Vance has outlined a plan that would allow Russia to keep the Ukrainian territory it has seized.”
14 Comments
Reader Comments (14)
Interesting analysis of low Dem numbers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/03/upshot/election-turnout-harris-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Another cogent column by Waldman, which includes a line that made me laugh.
https://paulwaldman.substack.com/p/the-vacuum-democrats-must-fill?utm_source=post-email-
Fox News discussing T***p's transition period?
Ms. Cox tells me why I was wrong about Joe. She does make a good point. Maybe I just want to see a saint in the White House.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/december-2-2024
While not yet voting age, I remember the optimism when Texas became the 8th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. Now eww... Sophie Gilbert, in The Atlantic, reminds us of one of the many consequences of the election in: Misogyny Comes Roaring Back
"The gender dynamics of this moment cannot be a surprise to anyone. Since his arrival in politics, in 2015, Trump has made his thoughts on women abundantly clear. He’s propagated the idea that those of us who don’t flatter or agree with him are not just difficult but 'nasty,' using the language of disgust to make women seem contaminated and morally reprehensible. He has shamed women for the way they look, for aging, for having opinions.
...
All his life, Trump has ruined people who get close to him. He won’t ruin women, but he will absolutely destroy a generation of men who take his vile messaging to heart. And, to some extent, the damage has already been done."
"It further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all." -- Sen. Michael Bennet
The media, not just right-wing, with Trump's help and encouragement has been doing that for the last decade. The fact that Trump has committed crimes in public and on video and had a room full of stolen classified material yet walked away scot free has eroded many's faith in the justice system. The Supremes creating rules to protect their *president and their refusal to abide by the simplest of ethics rules have undermined the justice system. Judges ignoring the law and creating their own is undercutting the system. Federal lawmakers treating terrorists as patriots and political prisoners have eroded the faith in the system. Racial profiling and rarely prosecuted police abuse has undermined the system. Unpunished rampant corporate corruption has undermined the system. Just today we have an article about a police officer who was retired for 14 years before he was charged for repeated sexual assaults while on the job. The justice system has long had a problem with faith and fairness. Many people of color would say it has never been fair or equal. And the lawmakers have done little to create the justice system that we aspired to in this country.
Salon
"Republicans don't care if women die from abortion bans — but they don't want you to know about it
Women will keep dying, but the GOP is working hard to destroy the evidence"
By Amanda Marcotte
South Korea
"South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol on Tuesday declared martial law in a surprise late-night TV address, slamming domestic political opponents and sending shockwaves through the country.
Yoon said opposition parties had taken the parliamentary process hostage. He vowed to eradicate "shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces" and said he had no choice but to take the measure to safeguard constitutional order.
Yonhap news agency cited the military as saying activities by parliament and political parties would be banned, and that media and publishers would be under the control of the martial law command."
Steve M.
"PARDON-GHAZI: BLAME "THE MOMMY PARTY" FOR THE FAILINGS OF DADDY
The political world believes that norm-breaking and corruption are essential elements of Donald Trump's nature, so when Trump corruptly gave pardons or clemency in his first term to Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Dinesh D'Souza, and Charles Kushner, among others, the executive actions were one-day stories at best. "Trump is just being Trump" is the political equivalent of "boys will be boys."
We conclude that we can't expect them to go against their essential fratty nature, or hold them accountable if they do harm as a result. So we blame the female party for male failings, as nature and God apparently intended."
https://www.meidasplus.com/p/the-big-reason-why-hunters-pardon?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Here is the link to the Ron Filipkoski article on Meidas, about Kash Patel and how he seems to be obsessed with going after Hunter Biden.
The Best People
"How Kash Patel bungled a SEAL Team Six hostage rescue
“You could’ve gotten these guys killed!” a Pentagon official screamed at Patel."
"None of these things address the REAL reason for the pardon - Trump’s appointment of Patel, who has ranted and raved for the past four years on every right-wing podcast in America that he was going to get Hunter Biden for things he has never been prosecuted for. Joe takes that threat seriously. Apparently, the critics either do not, or are ignorant and unaware of exactly who Patel is and what he has pledged to do specific to Hunter."
This is what I originally copied from Ron Filipkoski.
Might not have properly sent it.....
My bottom line is, THANK YOU JOE BIDEN.
Democrats are so cowed by the non-mandate of the morons of the right, they are begging for more lashes of Hunter and Joe Biden, as if this discussion was all on them. I am simply disappointed in the lack of support for this pardon, or at least the LOUDER lack of support, since it would make no difference if the left supported it or not. It was necessary to protect the life of Hunter Biden from the frothing spitting righties claiming some sort of ethical opinion that has no merit, since the right has no ethics to speak of. To have the grand Atlantic and the rest of the legacy press whine about this is pathetic. No, people, they WON'T like you if you pillory Biden or his son. They won't like you ever. Their hatred is ever burning, and nothing you do as a whelping baby will change their so-called minds. Get.Over.It.
@Jeanne: Let me assure you I am not trying to get Trump supporters to like me. It would never have occurred to me to hope they'd be my friend. I've elaborated on many reasons why I think Biden made a selfish mistake, not just in issuing the pardon -- which, as I've indicated, is supportable because Trump and Co. are such dangerous pricks -- but because of the construction of the pardon and, more importantly, because of his many promises not to pardon Hunter on account of his stated belief in the "rule of law."
I can support issuing a blanket pardon for crimes not yet charged because the Trumpies would not be above making up stuff, and as Steve M. believes, even executing Hunter for treason (I find that far-fetched, but betting Trump would be even minimally decent is a fool's wager). But (a) Joe Biden should have waited for sentencing on the crimes Hunter has admitted to and been convicted of, and (b) if the sentences were too harsh, he should have commuted them (as Tom Nichols wrote), not given Hunter an unconditional pardon. Moreover, if Hunter's sentence was reasonable, he should have served it. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
I respect those who disagree with me on this pardon, and I respect their reasons for disagreeing. I don't think they're necessarily wrong, either. Or that I'm necessarily right. This is an instance where there are good, legitimate arguments on both sides. I'm kind of an unrealistic goodie two-shoes, so it's not surprising where I landed. And it's also not surprising that I can see landing on the other side.
I get that you're angry -- you're always angry -- but accusing others -- including me -- of trying to gain points with the Trump crowd is not vaguely fair or reasonable. Cut it out. An apology is in order.