;)
October 15, 2022
Kristen Holmes & Sara Murray of CNN: "... Donald Trump on Friday does not say whether he will comply with the subpoena by the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection, in a lengthy response to the committee posted on Truth Social. In a letter addressed to committee chairman Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the former President doubles down on fraudulent claims that the 2020 election was stolen and insists the committee should have instead looked into these claims.... Trump lays blame on DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for not utilizing the National Guard. As CNN has previously reported, the speaker of the House is not in charge of Capitol security. That's the responsibility of the Capitol Police Board...." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie's Hint to Orange Jesus: If you want to contact Bennie Thompson, you might send a letter through Louis DeJoy's faltering outfit; I would guess Rep. Thompson does not have a subscription to Liars Social. And just as an aside, it's likely you won't convince Thompson that Nancy Pelosi is the perp here. P.S. I guess you didn't see the tape of Pelosi running the show, trying to get your pathetic made guys off their asses. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Luke Broadwater & Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "The letter [Donald Trump] released on Friday -- a conspiracy theory-filled rehash of his many grievances and false assertions -- underscored the risks for the [January 6] committee of giving Mr. Trump an unfettered public platform. 'The presidential election of 2020 was rigged and stolen!' the letter began in all capital letters. Mr. Trump dedicated page after page to repeating that lie about the 2020 election.... Instead of providing what he claimed was evidence, he included appendices filled with assertions of widespread election irregularities that have been debunked, some by his own former attorney general, William P. Barr, and other top Justice Department officials.... He ... again complained of what he claimed was media censorship that downplayed the size of the crowd [on January 6]." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Here's a detail in the story. In the video Alexandra Pelosi compiled, Nancy Pelosi is heard conferring with Mike Pence several times. At one point, she advises Pence, "Don't tell anyone where you are." Broadwater & Haberman report, "Mr. Trump never attempted to check on Mr. Pence.... But in a ... phone call sometime that afternoon, Mr. Pence's chief of staff, Marc Short, reached out Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff.... But when Mr. Meadows asked where the vice president was, Mr. Short declined to provide specifics, saying only that they were around the Capitol." Seems Pence took Pelosi's advice. ~~~
~~~ Tommy Christopher of Mediaite: "Trumpworld sources tell New York Times correspondent and CNN analyst Maggie Haberman that ... Donald Trump says he'll testify before the January 6 Committee if he can do it live -- and at least one of his lawyers is on board." MB: I don't hold much stock in this story; it sounds like something Trump is throwing out there so he can (1) get more attention and (2) later say, "I wanted to testify, but my lawyers insisted the committee would be too unfa-a-a-ir." (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ Azi Paybarah of the Washington Post: "Never-before-seen video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other congressional leaders on Jan. 6, 2021, offers strikingly vivid evidence undermining ... Donald Trump's long-debunked claim that the failure to adequately protect the Capitol from a pro-Trump mob lay not with him but with Pelosi. In the video shown Thursday by the House committee investigating the attack, Pelosi is on the phone pleading with Trump administration officials for help to stop the violence and secure the Capitol as U.S. Capitol Police were overmatched by the hundreds of rioters storming the building -- including some who demanded her head. Getting nowhere with the officials, she contacts Virginia's governor and says she will contact the D.C. mayor....
"Trump often has suggested that Pelosi failed to do her job, that the breach of the Capitol was her fault and ... not that of the commander in chief. He has falsely claimed that Pelosi rejected his order for 10,000 National Guard troops -- something that never happened. The former president, in a statement posted online Friday responding to the committee, wrote, 'I fully authorized' deployment of National Guard troops, but, he added falsely, the request was refused by officials who answer to Pelosi.... Trump's false claims were echoed by Republican lawmakers, including some who -- according to the newly released video -- were literally in the room when Pelosi and others were calling in reinforcements." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: Nancy Pelosi is our Churchill, without the Churchill baggage. ~~~
~~~ Aaron Blake of the Washington Post debunks GOP claims that Nancy Pelosi either refused aid from the National Guard or at least "hesitated" when it was offered. In one instance, videotape shows one of the perps -- Minority Whip Steve Scalise -- looking on while Pelosi was on the phone trying to secure assistance from the Guard.
Julia Ainsley & Ali Vitali of NBC News: "The House Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection has asked the Secret Service for records of all communications between the far-right Oath Keepers group and Secret Service agents prior to and on the day of the attack, after a preliminary accounting by the agency indicated multiple contacts in 2020, according to a Secret Service spokesman. The spokesman said the Congressional request follows a short telephonic briefing from the Secret Service to committee staff, in which the agency said an agent from its protective intelligence division had 'numerous' contacts with Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and other group members prior to Trump rallies in fall 2020, but that they were all part of common practice to inform the group of security protocols to follow."
Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "The Justice Department asked an appeals court on Friday to end a special master review of thousands of documents that the F.B.I. seized from ... Donald J. Trump's Florida estate, arguing that a federal judge had been wrong to intervene in its investigation into Mr. Trump's hoarding of sensitive government records. In a 53-page brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, the Justice Department broadly challenged the legal legitimacy of orders last month by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who blocked investigators from using the materials and appointed an independent arbiter to sift them for any that are potentially privileged or Mr. Trump's personal property. The Justice Department already succeeded in persuading a panel of the Atlanta-based court to exempt about 100 documents marked classified from Judge Cannon's move -- a decision the Supreme Court declined to overturn this week. In its new filing, the Justice Department asked the appeals court to reverse her order for the remaining 11,000 or so documents." (Also linked yesterday.) CNN's report is here.
Sadie Gurman & Alex Leary of Market Watch. The Wall Street Journal is reporting: "Federal investigators contacted at least two aides to ... Donald Trump months before the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago resort and have sought to talk to them again in recent weeks, people familiar with the matter said, as the Justice Department examines possible obstruction of its efforts to retrieve hundreds of government and classified documents. The aides, Walt Nauta and Will Russell, are witnesses in the Justice Department's investigation into the handling of presidential and classified records taken from the White House but aren't formally cooperating with the probe.... Russell hasn't personally spoken to investigators, who are communicating with his counsel.... [Russell] served in the Trump White House, including as a coordinator of presidential travel, and went on to work for the former president in Florida after he left office." ~~~
~~~ “Better Check Bedminster.” Mary Papenfuss of the Huffington Post: "As many as nine boxes that Donald Trump's aides hauled from his home in Florida this year to his New Jersey resort are raising new questions about the ex-president's hoarding of secret government documents. Video published May 9 by the Trump-friendly Daily Mail with an article about Trump decamping from Mar-a-Lago in the hot weather and settling in at Bedminster, New Jersey, for the summer shows aides loading boxes onto a private plane ferrying Trump. The cartons appear similar to those that FBI agents confiscated at Mar-a-Lago in August with a search warrant. 'Better check Bedminster,' former FBI official Peter Strozok tweeted last month as the video made the rounds on social media.... The National Archives ... has said it believes members of Trump's administration still have failed to turn over documents and electronic records." (Also linked yesterday.)
Why Marc Short Went Back to a Grand Jury. Spencer Hsu, et al., of the Washington Post: "A former top aide to Vice President Mike Pence returned before a grand jury Thursday to testify in a criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election after federal courts overruled ... Donald Trump's objections to the testimony, according to people familiar with the matter. In a sealed decision that could clear the way for other top Trump White House officials to answer questions before a grand jury, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that former Pence chief of staff Marc Short probably possessed information important to the Justice Department's criminal investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol that was not available from other sources, one of those people said. Trump appealed, but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to postpone Short's appearance while the litigation continues, the people said, signaling that attempts by Trump to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of presidential decision-making were not likely to prevail.... Other senior Trump White House officials could also be affected by the outcome of the court ruling...." (Also linked yesterday.)
digby republishes a big chunk of a Daily Beast story: "In new exclusive footage obtained by The Daily Beast, a yet-to-be-released documentary captured [Roger] Stone's meltdown after learning on President Joe Biden's inauguration day that he wouldn't be granted a second coveted legal protection, this time to shield from any Jan 6 legal fallout. (Trump issued a pardon to Stone in December 2020.)... 'Fuck you and your abortionist bitch daughter,' he concluded,referring to Ivanka Trump, according to the filmmaker Christoffer Guldbrandsen who said there was 'no doubt' who Stone was ranting about. According to the filmmakers, the video clip above was one of the few videos hand-selected by the Jan 6th Committee, but, in the end, the committee elected not to play the clip.... Guldbrandsen ... told The Daily Beast that the tense scene was from inauguration day on Jan. 20, 2021, and recorded in Fort Lauderdale.... 'Aside from Donald Trump, he also held Jared Kush[n]er responsible as being the guy who was the point man on the pardon,' he said." (Also linked yesterday.)
Another Setback for John Durham. (It Depends on What the Meaning of "Talk" Is.) Matthew Barakat of the AP: "A judge on Friday tossed out one of five counts against a think-tank analyst charged with lying to the FBI about his role in the creation of a flawed dossier about ... Donald Trump. The remaining four counts against Igor Danchenko will go to a jury Monday after prosecutors and the defense rested their cases Friday. But Judge Anthony Trenga reserved the right to toss out the other four counts regardless of what the jury decides. In the count that was tossed out, prosecutors alleged that Danchenko lied to the FBI when he told an agent that he never 'talked' with a Democratic operative named Charles Dolan about the information in the dossier[, but the two had communicated via email].... Danchenko is being prosecuted by Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed by then-Attorney General William Barr to investigate any misconduct in the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign and its alleged ties to Russia.... Testimony this week at trial has highlighted Durham's difficulty in proving his allegations. Two key FBI witnesses for the prosecution ended up providing testimony that was highly favorable to Danchenko, resulting in the unusual spectacle of Durham seeking to eviscerate the credibility of his own witnesses on re-direct."
Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times: In most cases, according to Article III of the Constitution, the Court has “appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." So, Bouie writes, "If Congress can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then it can determine which cases it can hear, the criteria for choosing those cases and even the basis on which the court can make a constitutional determination. Congress could say, for instance, that the court needs more than a bare majority to overturn a federal statute.... In the same way that it takes a supermajority of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment, it should probably take a supermajority of the court to say what the Constitution means, especially when it relates to acts and actions of elected officials.... Disputes over the Supreme Court's power of judicial review are not new."
Lauren Hirsch & Julie Creswell of the New York Times: "The grocery giant Kroger announced plans on Friday to acquire Albertsons in a deal that could reshape the supermarket landscape in the United States, uniting the country's largest supermarket chains at a time when rising costs and competition from Walmart and Amazon squeeze the industry. But the deal, which values Albertsons at about $24.6 billion including debt, is likely to invite intense scrutiny from regulator who are focused on the potential for large companies to affect prices, and have a history of blocking deals that may directly impact consumers. Even before the deal was announced Friday, consumer advocates had raised objections to its possibility." (Also linked yesterday.)
November Elections
Georgia Senate. Natalie Allison of Politico: "In his first and likely only debate with Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, [Herschel] Walker maintained he is still 'pro-life' and criticized the incumbent for supporting abortion rights. But he said that he agrees with the state of Georgia's law that allows exceptions for rape, incest and the mother's life while prohibiting abortion after six weeks, a position that differs from Walker's remarks earlier this year.... Despite Walker's accusations that Warnock had not prioritized the people of Georgia in office, Warnock told stories about working to solve his constituent' problems and concerns.... Throughout the debate, both men were repeatedly chastised for interrupting each other. At one point, Walker was reprimanded for bringing a prop to the debate, which appeared to be an identification badge -- likely one showing he was once a 'special deputy sheriff' in Cobb County." ~~~
~~~ New York Times reporters liveblogged the debate & pulled out some key moments.
Beyond the Beltway
Arizona. Jonathan Cooper of the AP: "Arizona's Republican attorney general, Mark Brnovich, on Friday asked the FBI and IRS to look into [MB: a right-wing] election integrity group that claimed to have uncovered widespread fraud in the 2020 election but never provided evidence. True the Vote, a nonprofit organization, has raised 'considerable sums of money' on its claim that it had evidence of widespread fraud and may have broken federal tax laws, Reggie Grigsby, a criminal investigator in Brnovich's office, wrote to federal authorities. Leaders from True The Vote promised repeatedly over the course of a year to provide data supporting their claim that people illegally collected ballots and delivered them to drop boxes during the 2020 election, Grigsby wrote. The claim was at the center of '2,000 Mules,' a debunked film that was aggressively promoted by ... Donald Trump.... But True the Vote ... never provided the data they promised to the attorney general's office despite claiming publicly that they had, Grigsby wrote. In June, they told state investigators they had given their data to the FBI while telling the FBI that the materials were given to the attorney general's office."
Way Beyond
Ukraine, et al.
The New York Times' live updates of developments Saturday in Russia's war on Ukraine are here. ~~~
Andrew Kramer of the New York Times: "Throughout this week, the Russian military fired its most intensive barrage of missiles at Ukraine since the start of the war in February, killing three dozen civilians, knocking out electricity and overwhelming air defenses. One thing the missiles did not do was change the course of the ground war. Fought mostly in trenches, with the most intense combat now in an area of rolling hills and pine forests in the east and on the open plains in the south, these battles are where control of territory is decided -- and where Russia's military continued to lose ground, despite its missile strikes. 'They use their expensive rockets for nothing, just to frighten people,' Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Ukraine's Parliament, said.... 'They think they can scare Ukrainians. But the goal they achieved is only making us angrier.'"
Andrew Higgins of the New York Times: "... eight months after Russia invaded Ukraine, [Belarus's strongman leader, Aleksandr] Lukashenko's Russian-enabled grip on power risks slipping as Moscow pressures him to get more involved in the faltering military campaign next door in Ukraine.... With his forces now largely bogged down or in retreat, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is looking to Mr. Lukashenko for more robust support. After a meeting with Mr. Putin in St Petersburg last weekend, Mr. Lukashenko on Monday told military and security officials that Ukraine, Poland and NATO were 'trying to drag us into a fight.... We must not let them drag us into a war.'..."
U.K. Peter Walker of the Guardian: "Jeremy Hunt has been appointed as Liz Truss's new chancellor, in a stunning reversal of political fortune and a sign that the beleaguered prime minister wants to reach out to other sections of the Conservative party. Hunt, the former foreign secretary and health secretary, who has twice tried unsuccessfully to become Conservative leader, was named chancellor after Kwasi Kwarteng, in the job for just over five weeks, was sacked by Truss ahead of another U-turn over tax cuts." (Also linked yesterday.)
Share Article
Reader Comments (16)
The Jan. 6 committee had almost no choice but to issue a subpoena to the Fascist gangster who planned, triggered, reveled in, and enormously benefited from the murderous violence at the Capitol the day his legion of thugs made their highly organized attack on American democracy and constitutional order.
Their work has consistently and carefully built a damning case with that fat fuck as the centerpiece of the conspiracy against the nation. They can hardly sign off without at least making the effort to drag his crooked ass in to testify.
But that’s now their biggest problem. They need Justice to be on board here, and Merrick Garland is nowhere to be seen. In fairness, no prosecutor wants to touch a case he or she has little chance of winning, and this would be a tough sell to any jury, especially with all the liars out there. And the biggest, fattest, most bald faced liar of them all is Donald Trump. It matters not a whit that he would be under oath. Oaths mean nothing to this schemer.
He’s lied under oath many times before and he certainly won’t see any value (to himself) to tell the truth now. He’s an expert at using weasel words, lies, unfounded accusations, and intimidation as weapons against truth and justice. If he gets to testify live, without any fear of retribution in the form of perjury penalties (only DoJ can bring such charges), then he’ll simply do what he always does, sling the bullshit and lie through his teeth. And because this isn’t an actual trial, there’s no judge to shut him up.
My initial reaction was that he’d find a way to avoid honoring the subpoena by claiming it’s all rigged against Trump, and running to his moronic donors to beg for more money. But really, what’s he got to lose? He can use this platform to make himself into the shineless beacon of shit to his drooling minions, fighting against evil truth and justice. And if the committee makes it too hot for him, he’ll just do what he always does when cornered: run away, then declare victory. He’ll get up and walk out the door.
Trump has been incredibly lucky to have been able to turn the largely inchoate hatred and paranoia of the right into both a shield and a weapon. And those are what have sustained, fed, and protected his ruthless drive for power. And he continues to make use of that hatred and paranoia.
This is high stakes poker for both sides, but in the committee’s case, they’re playing against a guy who cheats with impunity. They could lay out a royal straight flush and Fatty will cry that they’re ones who cheated and that his nothing hand actually won.
And millions will believe him.
I get that the committee had to do this, and I applaud their steadfast determination in shedding damning light on the most culpable source of treason and violence. We’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out.
In the short term, it makes no difference to the supporters of treason and Trumpism (the same thing, really) what evidence is revealed about Fat Donald’s culpability. You see the polls in Georgia? A total incompetent, clearly disturbed and serially mendacious bobblehead is neck and neck with a smart, serous, highly competent and decent sitting senator. Why? These fucking people don’t give a shit about truth or justice or anything but their own vile craving for power.
But it’s important in the eyes of history that we don’t knuckle under to the liars and the traitors, even as they live solely to pull us all under the water and drown us.
Thought experiment:
Let's say I visited the White House and in an unsupervised moment surrendered to the urge to possess a memento of the visit, grabbed a small memo pad someone had carelessly left out on a desk and stuffed it in a pocket.
Somehow, a year later, word of what I'd done got back to the authorities.
What would happen?
A letter on WH stationery telling me no worries, the memo pad wasn't important--or a visit from some grim-faced G-Men whom I would attempt to fob off by telling them I didn't have it but if by chance I did, it was mine all along anyway...
Think my visitors would thank me politely and leave fully satisfied?
Let my public defender file a succession of silly lawsuits to delay any possible consequence for the next decade?
Or would they ask me to come along with them--in bracelets?
"Equal justice under law," words inscribed on the SCOTUS building....Surprised all those serious priests in the black robes don't die of embarrassment when they see them.
Hard to top the absurd world we live in...
This morning satirists have my sympathy.
@Ken Winkes: Sorry, Ken. Some are more equal than others.
The story that most amused me today was the judge's dismissal of one count in the Danchenko case. The full AP explanation of that is this:
“In the count that was tossed out, prosecutors alleged that Danchenko lied to the FBI when he told an agent that he never 'talked' with a Democratic operative named Charles Dolan about the information in the dossier.
“As it turns out, there was evidence that Dolan and Danchenko had discussed the information over email. Defense attorneys argued that Danchenko’s response was literally true because they did not talk orally, and the question the FBI agent asked specifically referenced talking.
“[Judge] Trenga agreed, and he said that accepting the prosecution’s argument that the question had a broader context than mere talking would result in 'divorcing words from their common meaning.'”
That is, if the FBI questioned me about Ken Winkes' (hypothetical!) theft of a bit of White House stationery by asking, "And did you talk to Mr. Winkes about it?" I could honestly reply with a one-word answer: "no." On the other hand, if I wanted to be more helpful to the FBI, I could say, "Well, we didn't talk about it, no. But Ken did write a longish essay about it on Reality Chex, and I made a short reply." That would be a full and honest answer, and one I guess I might give if I wanted to finger Ken. (But I don't!)
As I see it in the Danchenko case, the problem is not with Danchenko but with the agents who questioned him. He answered the limited question honestly, albeit narrowly. So the agents should have asked a follow-up question on the lines of, "Did you ever have any communication with Dolan about the dossier? In the form of letters, drop-off notes, emails, text messages, voice mails, via a third-party go-between, or otherwise? Either from Dolan to you or from you to Dolan or both?" There Danchenko would have had to answer in the affirmative.
One would wish that our FBI interrogators were sharper, and would know to have asked follow-up questions to nail down that detail. But maybe Durham hand-picked the agents. So there ya go.
I think Marie Burns might very well have been a dandy FBI agent/ judge/ or spiffy spy–––she's our Nancy P. who gets to the heart of the matter and cuts through all the bullshit. As to the fate of Fatty I think in the end he's gonna get his goose cooked––-if I didn't believe that I would have given up on this country completely. I'm on the edge, but haven't taken the leap.
Duh…
Oh yeah, send that guy to the senate…
Last night in the debate between Senator Raphael Warnock and the obviously mentally impaired and morally repugnant R guy, shoved in there by the even more morally repugnant former guy, that R guy, former football player and serial payer of abortion for women he’s impregnated but had no intention of ever supporting, Herschel Walker, was asked a question about healthcare.
His answer was predictable, but nonetheless astonishing as an indication of his ignorance regarding most anything he talks about.
Throwing together some word salad, Walker said that Americans shouldn’t rely on guvmint for healthcare. Pointing to Senator Warnock, he said “What I want you to do is get off the government healthcare and get on the healthcare he’s got to get you a better healthcare.”
Oooohhkay. Warnock, like all senators, has government sponsored healthcare. Nice try there, Herschel, but the ref is going to have to throw a flag there. 15 yards and loss of down for stupidity.
Oh yeah, he stared off his answer by stating that if you have an “able-bodied job” you get healthcare through your employer. No. You don’t. That’s a lie, or to be kind, more stupidity. Fewer than 55% of American workers have employer based heath insurance. And there are millions, tens of millions of part-time employees who get nothing from their employer.
But sure. Send this idiot to the Senate.
And how wide is the gulf between the very minor doings in the Durham court and what is at stake in the multiple investigations into the FG's mis- and malfeasance?
No answer needed. Just an observation on the nation's silly priorities and a bit of wry gratitude, as the father of one of them, for the full-employment program all these legal maneuverings offer hundreds of attorneys.
BTW, Marie, thanks for letting me off the hook.
@Akhilleus: Not only that, even if you have an "able-bodied job," you will most likely be paying out-of-pocket up to 100% of that healthcare policy premium; the only benefit is that group insurance you get through a large corporation is cheaper than individual insurance.
Listened to an interview yesterday with former Fatty fixer, Michael Cohen. Now I’m always a tad queasy about taking this guy as a model of truth and honesty, but Cohen, if he knows anything well, knows how Trump thinks and operates. When asked about his former boss’s rationale for stealing top secret documents, he had no hesitation in offering an entirely believable theory.
“He sees those documents as a get out of jail card. He’ll trade them back for something that benefits him.”
That rings true. Fatty is purely transactional. There’s no right or wrong in his calculation, no moral or ethical underpinnings to his decisions. No sense of honor or decency. It’s all about “What’s good for little Donald”.
If he can’t steal them back, he’s got nothing to trade. He wants “his” documents back so he’s got some leverage. Salting the justice system with “his” judges wasn’t so he could help confederates impose their warped ideology (a secondary benefit at best). It was so he could go to them and get what he feels he deserves for putting them on the bench. Purely transactional. The fact that not all of “his judges” see it that way must piss him off royally.
@Akhilleus: I heard Cohen say the same thing a while back. Then -- after he said that -- the New York Times reported that Trump wanted to offer to trade (what was no doubt only some of the) documents in his possession (which of course were the property of the National Archives) with the Archives in exchange for their sending him some Russia investigation docs.
Apparently his lawyers saw the fallacies in that plan so they didn't let Trump try it, but it does prove that Cohen and you are right. It's like a burglar who says, "I'll give you back your grandma's pearls if you'll give me that diamond ring you were wearing at a charity ball while I was burgling your house." Tell it to the judge, Trumpy.
Marie,
And I’m betting Trump has even more stolen documents squirreled away somewhere. Someone should check his golf bag. Buried under McDonalds wrappers and fraudulently marked score cards I’ll bet you find names of US agents in dangerous countries, documents he’ll either try to sell or trade back.
Interesting to note that right-wingers in Britain are unreliable, incompetent hacks just like wingers in this country. How long before the tories realize that conservative politics, as currently comprised, offers little in the way of something beyond racism, hatred, fear, paranoia, culture war, and corporate cupidity?
I’m only kidding.
Of course they realize that. But it’s not exactly an accidental outcome. It’s what conservatives stand for now. What they’ll probably figure out pretty soon is that what they need, in order to hold on to power and permanently embed those nasty qualities in the body politic, is an authoritarian fascist system like they have in Hungary and now Italy, and a shameless crook and mendacious front man like Trump.
Right now they’re too Trussed up.
(I know, I know. You knew that was coming. Didn’t have to wait long to use that one…)
....Or in Russia...or....
Akhilleus, yeah, there is a close connection among all the Right loonies here and across the pond.
Sent this wise ass comment to The New Yorker yesterday.
"Dear Editor,
Ms. Gessen’s short piece in the October 17 New Yorker on “Different Worlds” neatly identifies the poverty of Putin’s thinking. In his Sept. 30 speech announcing Russia’s acceptance into the Russian Federation of four disputed Ukrainian regions, Gessen reports that Putin was reduced to parroting two of our own Right Wing’s favorite taking points, reiterating his discomfort at three parent families and at what are to him the frightening implications of gender fluidity.
How little it takes to make a Strong Man tremble."
Ken,
Ain’t it the truth?
Makes you wonder about that term “strongman”. In most instances it really means “fearful, vengeful, paranoid man”.
In our country, those big he-man R’s are so frightened of every little thing. They’re afraid that kids might learn about real history, about human biology and aspects of gender, and god forbid they learn to think for themselves! Aieeeee! Can’t have that. Ban the books, lock them up, fire the teachers, jail the librarians, don’t allow “those people” to vote, attack religions we fear, legislate against ideas we don’t like, support dictators we do, overthrow elections we don’t win.
That’s freeeeedom! (But keep the guns handy, just in case!)
Ken: Yup–-read Gessen this afternoon. Here's her introduction:
"Putin, in his speech, described both the Russian World and the larger world as he sees it. According to him, the West destroyed the Soviet Union in 1991, but Russia came back, defiant and strong. Now the West wants to destroy Russia. “They see our thought and our philosophy as a direct threat,” he said. “That is why they target our philosophers for murder.” The ultimate goal of the West—specifically, the United States and Great Britain—is to subjugate people around the world and force them to give up traditional values, to have “ ‘parent No. 1,’ ‘parent No. 2,’ and ‘parent No. 3’ instead of mother and father (they have completely lost it!),” and to teach schoolchildren that “there are some other genders besides men and women and offer them sex-change operations.” Putin has said, repeatedly, that only Russia can save the world from this menace. This is the story of a world in which his war in Ukraine—and the draft, and even, perhaps, a nuclear strike—makes sense."
and somewhere in the heartland–-maybe Kansas–--or in one of those southern states–-how bout Georgia–––we gots lots of folks that feel jest like Putin do. Amazing grace ––sung with gusto!
Interesting: pooty poot is whining about the US and UK, the two countries/governments that I think he has deliberately sabotaged with T**** and Brexit. His fingerprints are everywhere on both counts.