;)
The Conversation -- February 9, 2024
I'm well-meaning, and I'm an elderly man, and I know what the hell I'm doing. I've been president and I put this country back on its feet. -- President Joe Biden, White House remarks, Thursday evening
Mr. Biden would likely present himself ... as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. -- Special Counsel Robert Hur, report
Zolan Kanno-Youngs of the New York Times: "The White House on Friday called the special counsel's report into President Biden's handling of classified material politically motivated, escalating its attempts to discredit a document that characterized the president as elderly and forgetful. Vice President Kamala Harris suggested that the report was more of a political attack than an unbiased legal document. Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel's Office, said the report was 'inappropriate' and 'troubling.'...
"'The way the president's demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts and clearly politically motivated,' Ms. Harris said in response to questions from reporters at the White House. She also said Mr. Biden had sat down for in-person interviews with the special counsel's office just a day after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel. 'It was an intense moment for the commander in chief of the United States of America,' Ms. Harris said. 'He was in front of it all, coordinating and directing leaders who are in charge of America's national security.'"
Kierra Frazier of Politico: "Former Attorney General Eric Holder slammed Special Counsel Robert Hur's report that contained observations on President Joe Biden's memory. 'Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions,' Holder said in a post on X early Friday morning. 'Had this report been subject to a normal DOJ review these remarks would undoubtedly have been excised.'... Tommy Vietor, a former Obama White House aide who now co-hosts Pod Save America, said the report was filled with 'ad hominem attacks' and was 'just a right-wing hit job from within Biden's own DOJ.' 'Hur, a lifelong Republican and creature of DC, didn't have a case against Biden, but he knew exactly how his swipes could hurt Biden politically,' said Jim Messina, Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager."
Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post: Robert Hur's "extensive discussions of [President Biden's cognitive condition] were not merely gratuitous -- they constituted an egregious transgression of prosecutorial boundaries.... [Hur's] portrayal of Biden as a doddering old man is inconsistent with what I hear from those who have frequent interactions with him. But assuming its accuracy, the details go far beyond what is appropriate to explain the decision to decline prosecution, and far beyond Hur's brief.... Prosecutors are supposed to remain above the partisan fray, not embroiled in it.... A responsible prosecutor would have taken care to avoid what Hur has done, which is to let his report become a potent -- perhaps even lethal -- weapon in the coming campaign." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Yes, but if you credit Hur with writing, not a report, but a rambling, incoherent novel of the Look Homeward, Angel genre, then maybe it's what you might call a coming-of-aging story about a protagonist whom Hur calls "Joe Biden": ~~~
~~~ Marcy Wheeler: "Hur spent a year trying to find facts that would allow him to charge Joe Biden, charge a President, doing backflips with the evidence along the way, and then writing up a report that provides far more evidence about 40 year old documents covered by Speech and Debate than we'll ever learn about the stolen documents at Mar-a-Lago. This was never an ethical prosecutorial pursuit. It was always about writing a novel for a rabid audience." MB: This is one of Wheeler's long proofs, but Hur gives her a lot of material to work through.
Paul Campos in LG&$: "It's difficult to overstate what an absolutely astonishing own goal Merrick Garland scored by appointing Robert Hur to lead the Biden documents case.... So why did Merrick Garland do this incredibly stupid and reckless thing?... Because Robert Hur was Executive Editor of the Stanford Law Review, and clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and was a partner at Gibson Dunn, and somebody with that kind of impeccable legal pedigree wouldn't ever be a partisan hack, because if he was that would call into question the impeccable judgment of the other Elite Lawyers who anointed appointed him to those exalted offices, where Objective Legal Analysis always wins out over Partisan Political Considerations, because only the Very Best People get those kinds of jobs, because ... OK I can't do this any more.
"Merrick Garland should be fired immediately. He has one of the most important jobs in the United States, and he's absolutely terrible at it, which is a bad combination, especially when there's a little light sedition in the air.... This guy might as well be a Republican plant, but the really sad part is that I don't doubt for a second that he's as sincere as Linus in the pumpkin patch, waiting for the Spirit of the Law to bring presents to all the good little boys and girls...."
Robert Draper & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "A lawyer for the chief witness against Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said on Friday that the witness was cooperating with a House Ethics Committee investigation into whether Mr. Gaetz had sex with an underage girl while he was serving in Congress. Fritz Scheller, a lawyer for Mr. Gaetz's former friend and political ally Joel Greenberg, said he provided documents to the committee related to claims Mr. Greenberg has made about Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Greenberg previously told federal investigators that he had witnessed Mr. Gaetz having sex with a 17-year-old girl. 'Mr. Greenberg has and will cooperate with any congressional request,' Mr. Scheller said in an email on Friday."
Brandi Buchman of Law & Crime: "In a new motion, special counsel Jack Smith shredded Donald Trump's latest attempt to indefinitely delay the classified documents case in Florida before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, urging the court to resist the former president's efforts to 'stop at nothing' to delay facing a jury. '... the tactics they deploy are relentless and misleading -- they will stop at nothing to stall the adjudication of the charges against them by a fair and impartial jury of citizens...,' Smith wrote in the 9-page brief filed in Florida late Thursday.... Trump's lawyers were either simply unprepared or were flatly ignoring court orders, according to the special counsel, and now, three months on, as Trump's team has filed requests to adjourn the case completely, they still come asking for more time to file pretrial documents.... Most offensive to the special counsel is Trump's attempt to dismiss the 40-some charges he faces for alleged illegal retention of sensitive and classified documents by attempting to advance an argument of 'presidential immunity.' The conduct charged took place after Trump left office, Smith wrote."
Edward Moreno & Joe Rennison of the New York Times: "Stocks rose on Friday, with the S&P 500 index closing above 5,000 for the first time amid a rally fueled by better-than-expected earnings reports. The move comes less than a month after the index returned to record territory, surpassing a high set in January 2022. The benchmark, which tracks the stock performance of the largest companies in America, is the foundation of many portfolios and retirement plans and is the most common gauge of sentiment on Wall Street. The rally in the stock market has come with inflation cooling, corporate profits growing and lower borrowing costs on the horizon."
U.K. Your Royal Gossip Fix, Ctd. Mark Landler of the New York Times: "Prince Harry has settled his privacy claims against a British tabloid publisher, his lawyer told a London court on Friday, two months after a judge found the publisher guilty of 'widespread and habitual' hacking of the prince's cellphone. The settlement with Mirror Group Newspapers -- which his lawyer said would amount to at least 400,000 pounds, or $504,000 -- brings to an end one battle in Harry's long-running war against the press over its intrusive coverage of his private life.... In addition to paying for the costs of the case, the Mirror Group would pay additional 'significant' damages, the prince's lawyer, David Sherborne, said.... In his statement, Harry singled out Piers Morgan, a prominent TV personality and a former editor of The Daily Mirror, saying Mr. Morgan 'knew perfectly well what was going on.' Mr. Morgan's 'contempt for the court's ruling and his continued attacks ever since demonstrate why it was so important to obtain a clear and detailed judgment,' Harry said."
~~~~~~~~~~
The Report
Glenn Thrush of the New York Times: "The special counsel investigating President Biden said in a report released on Thursday that he had decided 'no criminal charges are warranted' against Mr. Biden over his handling of classified material after leaving the vice presidency in early 2017, but had found evidence that Mr. Biden had willfully retained and disclosed some sensitive material. Robert K. Hur, the special counsel, said in his highly unflattering report that Mr. Biden had left the White House after his vice presidency with classified documents about Afghanistan and notebooks with handwritten entries 'implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods' taken from internal White House briefings. The report said that Mr. Biden had shared the content of the notebooks with a ghostwriter who helped him on his 2017 memoir, 'Promise Me, Dad' even though he knew some of it was classified. While Mr. Hur decided not to prosecute Mr. Biden, some of his reasons for doing so are likely to raise new questions about the president's conduct and his mental state....' Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,' Mr. Hur wrote."
"White House officials said Mr. Biden had fully cooperated with the investigation and that he took the handling of classified information seriously. 'We disagree with a number of inaccurate and inappropriate comments in the special counsel's report. Nonetheless, the most important decision the special counsel made -- that no charges are warranted -- is firmly based on the facts and evidence,' Richard Sauber, a special counsel for Mr. Biden, said in a statement.... In the report's introduction, Mr. Hur cited Mr. Biden's cooperation with investigators, in stark contrast with ... Donald J. Trump's behavior when documents were discovered at his resort in Florida, as one of the factors in his decision not to bring charges.... Mr. Hur could not establish whether classified documents discovered at Mr. Biden's house had been willfully retained, or whether they had been obtained during his vice presidency and sloppily stored." (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ Politico's report, by Betsy Swan, is here: "Biden's memory lapse was a common theme throughout Hur's report.... One of [Biden's] attorneys, Bob Bauer, took umbrage with the portrayal, accusing Hur of 'essentially, "trashing" the subject of an investigation' with 'extraneous, unfounded and irrelevant critical commentary.' Biden's attorneys also wrote directly to Hur and his team before the report's publication to complain about the focus on the president's memory lapses. As documented in the report, they called the focus 'gratuitous' and urged Hur to revise his summarizations, saying it was beyond his 'expertise and remit.'... Biden addressed the report during an appearance at a retreat for House Democrats on Thursday afternoon. 'I was pleased to see the special counsel make clear the stark differences between this case and Trump's,' he said, 'The special counsel in my case decided against moving forward with any charges. This matter is now closed.' He banged the podium with a fist." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ The report, via the DOJ, is here. It begins with an executive summary. President Biden's statement, via the White House, is here.(Also linked yesterday.)
Marie: You are not mistaken. This report was Jim Comey on steroids. Remember when Comey released the FBI's report recommending no charges against Hillary Clinton for her home server blunder but then trashed her in a press conference ostensibly called to clear her? (Not to be confused with the "October Surprise," which arguably cost Clinton the election.) Joy Reid pointed out on MSNBC last night that at the bottom of the first page of the executive summary (p. 5 of the linked report), Hur writes, "Mr. Biden has long seen himself as a historic figure.... He believed his record during decades in the Senate made him worthy of the presidency...." This is not how a factual DOJ report is supposed to be written. As President Biden's attorneys wrote, Hur went beyond his "expertise and remit." An analogous Mueller report might have begun, "Mr. Trump is an ignorant, narcissistic sociopath with autocratic tendendies who should never have ascended to any public office, let along the presidency*." It didn't. ~~~
~~~ As to Biden's being "a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," his interviewers asked him questions going back 40 years. I sat for a deposition when I was "a well-meaning 50-year-old woman" with no cognitive problems. When I was asked about a letter I had written when I was 21 years old, I did not remember the letter. At all. Ari Melber of MSNBC pointed out that lawyers usually advise their clients to say, "I don't recall" when asked about something they couldn't remember. And you don't have to be a doddering old codger with a faulty memory to forget dates and specifics. Most of us don't remember much about uneventful matters that occurred decades ago. Hur's characterization of President Biden is over the top, politically-motivated and in extremely bad form. It reflects poorly on him more than it does on Biden. P.S. If Merrick Garland had any balls, he would make a public statement condemning the tenor of the so-called report.
Michael Shear of the New York Times: "The investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of the documents ... [made] such startling assertions that they prompted a fiery and emotional attempt at political damage control from the president within hours. Speaking to the cameras from the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House, Mr. Biden on Thursday evening blasted the report by Robert K. Hur, the special counsel, accusing the report's authors of 'extraneous commentary' about his age and mental capacity.... The president's lawyers, Bob Bauer and Richard Sauber, took exception in a Feb. 5 letter with Mr. Hur's description of the president's memory. 'It is hardly fair to concede that the president would be asked about events years in the past, press him to give his "best" recollections and then fault him for his limited memory,' the lawyers wrote. 'The president's inability to recall dates or details of events that happened years ago is neither surprising nor unusual.'...
"The tough language by Mr. Hur could set the stage for Mr. Trump and his allies to launch a fresh round of political attacks on Mr. Biden for doing the very same kinds of things Mr. Trump is accused of doing.... Republicans began using the report to attack Mr. Biden almost immediately, sometimes going much further than the prosecutor's actual conclusions. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said on social media, falsely, that 'the special counsel decided not to bring charges against Biden because they believe he has age related dementia.'" NPR's report is here. ~~~
Josh Marshall of TPM: "... this is another example of the universal rule: Republican special counsels are chosen to investigate Democrats. And Republican special counsels are chosen to investigate Republicans. It may not have been a great idea for Merrick Garland to have a two-time Trump appointee investigate Joe Biden. But here we are. Robert Hur totally slimed Biden with these gratuitous comments about his mental acuity and memory.... Even if you assume they are the product of a good faith evaluation they are still wildly inappropriate. DOJ guidelines make clear that if you're not bringing charges you don't bash the subject of the investigation in your announcement (a la James Comey). You certainly aren't supposed to affirmatively attempt to demean the subject of the investigation with clearly political attacks that aren't even related to what you're investigating." MB: On the other hand, Hur did not find a blue dress. ~~~
~~~ Scott Lemieux in LG&$: Ditto. "It's very bad, but at this late date it has to hang on Garland at least as much as Hur himself. He was doing what anybody should have expected him to do."
Samantha Latson of Politico: "Donald Trump and his GOP presidential rival Nikki Haley each slammed a Justice Department special counsel decision Thursday not to charge President Joe Biden for mishandling classified documents.... 'THIS HAS NOW PROVEN TO BE A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION! The Biden Documents Case is 100 times different and more severe than mine,' Trump, who faces criminal prosecution for deliberately retaining classified material, said in a statement. 'I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal.'... Haley also used the decision to take a jab at both Biden and her rival Trump: 'Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump were reckless with classified documents,' she wrote on social media platform X. "If Biden's defense is old age and forgetfulness, Trump can easily make the same claim....'" ~~~
~~~ Marie: Maybe the upside of narcissism is that it doesn't require any coordination with facts. A narcissist can lie with alacrity, as Trump does here. He doesn't have to read; he doesn't have to study; he doesn't have to rationalize or make excuses; he just flips off the world and presents his own fantasies as reality.
Presidential Race
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court seemed poised on Thursday to issue a lopsided decision rejecting a challenge to ... Donald J. Trump's eligibility to hold office again. Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism about several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that Mr. Trump's conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office under a constitutional provision that bars people who have sworn to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection.... The ruling is likely to resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot but also whether he is eligible to run in the general election. Indeed, the decision in the Colorado case will almost certainly apply to any other state where Mr. Trump's eligibility to run has been challenged, including Maine, where the state's top elections official ruled he should be excluded from the ballot. There was very little discussion of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol or of Mr. Trump's role in it. But a majority of the justices indicated that they were prepared to rule that individual states may not disqualify candidates in a national election unless Congress first enacts legislation allowing them to do so. Some justices also seemed open to two other arguments: that the post-Civil War prohibition at issue, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, bars candidates from holding office, as opposed to running for it, and that the president is not among the officials to whom the provision applies."
Traditionally the idea of state's rights has been the purview and preponderant obsession of the wingers on the court.... But of course if that means states get to decide stuff the wingers don't cotton to, then that state's rights stuff is right out. The only thing consistent about them is the belief that their side needs to win no matter what. -- Akhilleus, in yesterday's thread
They are textualists only when textualism provides a means to and end -- like when they say, "Well, we have to give everybody a gun because it says so right here in the Second Amendment." But when a purported 'close reading' does not suit them, suddenly they are pragmatists. -- Chris Hayes of MSNBC, Thursday (very loose paraphrase)
You do have to wonder how the Supremes would have reacted had Hillary Clinton led a motley army into the Capitol to try to prevent Joe Biden from counting electoral votes in 2016. Would she still be eligible to run for president? Just asking. -- Marie
Chris Geidner of Law Dork: "... the U.S. Supreme Court appeared all but certain to rule that, at least under current federal law, Donald Trump can appear on Colorado's Republican presidential primary ballot, reversing the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to the contrary.... The justices appeared to be more concerned about what removing Trump from the ballot would do rather than whether the Constitution says he is disqualified."
Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post: "After saying he'd listened to the Supreme Court oral arguments Thursday..., Trump reverted to one of his signature falsehoods.... Trump ... referred to what his detractors 'kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection ... if it was an insurrection.' He claimed that what he really did was offer 'very beautiful, very heartwarming statements' during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He also suggested people should view the video he posted late in the day -- or as he put it, 'very shortly after.' That would be hard. The video was removed from YouTube and other social media shortly after being posted, on the grounds that it violated the terms of service by spreading false information about the 2020 election." Kessler provides a timeline of the events of the day and Trump's responses. It's a useful and shocking reminder of what a horrible human being Trump is. ~~~
~~~ Marie: CNN played live bits of Trump's remarks after the hearing. They kept cutting out because, as Jake Tapper said, Trump was lying so much and just giving a campaign speech. What was more startling than the lies was how infantile Trump is. If he listened to the hearing, why didn't he say any more about it than "they did a good job," or words to that effect. Instead, he rambled on about extraneous matters: "We're at 90% in Nevada, I think we're at 90% everywhere, Joe Biden sucks, blah, blah." Don't tell me Joe Biden is off his game when Trump is totally out of it, reduced to toddler babble. I suspect his aides tell him how good his poll numbers are the way you tell a severely intellectually disabled person that the stick figures he drew are great, and the poor fellow is able to parrot back, "I did good, didn't I?"
Michael Gold of the New York Times: "... Donald J. Trump glided to victory in Nevada's Republican caucuses on Thursday, an outcome all but guaranteed because he was the only major candidate on the ballot. The Associated Press declared Mr. Trump the winner shortly after caucus sites closed in Nevada, giving him his fourth straight triumph in a Republican nominating contest that awards delegates this year."
Annals of "Journalism," Ha Ha Ha. Hannity Promotes Violence Against Strangers on Live TV. Jake Offenhartz of the AP: "Members of the Guardian Angels roughed up a man during a live interview on Fox News Tuesday night, then misidentified him as a 'migrant' in a primetime segment meant to highlight disorder and crime caused by new arrivals to New York City. The bizarre altercation played out as Curtis Sliwa, founder of the anti-crime patrol group, was speaking to Sean Hannity from Times Square, flanked by volunteers in their signature red berets and bomber jackets. As some Guardian Angels began leaving Sliwa's side to attend to an off-screen disturbance, the camera panned to show them confronting an unidentified man, pushing him to the sidewalk and placing him in a headlock. 'In fact, our guys have just taken down one of the migrant guys...,' Sliwa told Hannity.... The man is not a migrant, but a New Yorker from the Bronx, police said Wednesday afternoon. Though Sliwa claimed the man had been caught shoplifting, police provided no evidence to support the allegation.... Police said the man was issued a disorderly conduct summons because he was acting in a loud and threatening manner on a public sidewalk.... Sliwa said he had believed the man was a migrant because he was 'speaking Spanish.'..." ~~~
~~~ Philip Bump of the Washington Post: Hannity "welcomed Sliwa back at the end of the show to explain what happened. 'Well, he had been shoplifting first,' Sliwa claimed. 'The Guardian Angels spotted him, stopped him. He resisted. And let's just say we gave him a little pain compliance.' Hannity chuckled. 'His mother back in Venezuela felt the vibrations. He's sucking concrete. The cops scraped off the asphalt.'... That Fox News carried the scuffle live was a function of a number of bad decisions, certainly. But all of them were downstream from the same point of origin: wanting to cast New York City, once again, as collapsing metropolis overrun by criminal immigrants."
The Trials of Trump & the Trump Gang
Igor Derysh of Salon: "Legal experts sounded the alarm after the judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case rejected special counsel Jack Smith's bid to keep government witnesses secret. Smith's team opposed making information public that could reveal the identity or any personal identifying information of any potential witnesses in the case or any transcripts or other documents they may have provided, citing concerns about witness intimidation. Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in Trump's favor on the matter, writing: '... the Special Counsel has not set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation from the strong presumption in favor of public access to the records at issue.'... Longtime Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe said he hopes Tuesday's order 'will trigger a motion to remove her.... The 11th Circuit might well agree this was the last straw. Compromising national security is a bridge too far,' he tweeted. 'It is impossible to overstate how awful and unethical is Aileen Cannon,' added Norman Ornstein, emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. 'Clearly has no business being a judge at any level.'" ~~~
~~~ So Then.... Mike Levine & Katherine Faulders of ABC News: "Federal authorities are currently investigating a series of threats made online to a potential witness related to special counsel Jack Smith's classified documents case against ... Donald Trump, according to a new court filing from Smith's team. In the filing late Wednesday in federal court in Florida, Smith's team asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ... to let them file an exhibit under seal because, they wrote, 'The exhibit describes in some detail threats that have been made over social media to a prospective Government witness and the surrounding circumstances, and the fact that those threats are the subject of an ongoing federal investigation being handled by a United States Attorney's Office.'"
They're Going to Take Him Away, Away. Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post: "A federal judge on Thursday ordered former Trump White House aide Peter Navarro to begin serving a four month-prison term for ignoring a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, rejecting his request to stay free while he appeals his conviction on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress.... In a 12-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta said that none of Navarro's claims posed a 'substantial question of law' or a close call. Unless the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stays his sentence imposed Jan. 25, Mehta ordered, Navarro 'shall report to the designated Bureau of Prisons ('BOP') facility on the date ordered by the BOP.' Navarro has not received a reporting date and is expected to ask the circuit court to intervene."
Dino Grandoni of the Washington Post: "Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, won his long-standing legal battle against two right-wing bloggers who claimed that he manipulated data in his research and compared him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky, a major victory for the outspoken researcher. A jury in a civil trial in Washington on Thursday found that the two writers, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, defamed and injured the researcher in a pair of blog posts published in 2012, and awarded him more than $1 million. 'I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,' Mann said in a statement[.] Mann's victory comes amid heightened attacks on scientists working not just on climate change but also on vaccines and other issues." The AP's report is here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine, et al.
The Washington Post's live updates of developments Friday in the Israel/Hamas war are here: President "Biden's comments [that Israel's attacks on Gaza are 'over the top'] follow National Security Council spokesman John Kirby saying 'we would not support' a major Israeli military operation in crowded Rafah under current conditions, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying he had conveyed 'profound concerns' to Israel about inflammatory rhetoric and actions, calling for it to address the high civilian death toll. Biden also issued a memorandum laying out standards for countries that receive U.S. weapons and, for the first time, requires the administration to submit an annual report to Congress about whether they are meeting the requirements. It comes after Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about the extent of Israels campaign in Gaza." ~~~
~~~ The New York Times' live updates for Friday are here.
Yasmeen Abutaleb of the Washington Post: "President Biden on Thursday said Israel's military campaign in Gaza has been 'over the top' in his sharpest rebuke yet and said he hoped the current negotiations over a release of hostages in exchange for a long-term pause could lay the groundwork to change the course of the war.... Biden, who has been resistant to speak in detail about the suffering in Gaza, also spoke in the most visceral terms yet about the desperation in the enclave. 'I've been pushing really hard to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. A lot of innocent people are starving. A lot of innocent people are in trouble and they're dying and it's got to stop,' Biden said. The comments mark a stunning turnaround for Biden, who has an emotional attachment to Israel and has largely refused to criticize the country even as anger grows among left-leaning parts of the Democratic base over the war in Gaza and its enormous civilian toll."
Ukraine, et al.
Karoun Demirjian of the New York Times: "A sweeping emergency aid bill for Ukraine and Israel inched ahead in the Senate on Thursday, providing glimmers of hope for the measure after a series of setbacks. But hurdles remained as Republicans slow-walked progress, demanding changes and feuding internally over whether to back it. In a bipartisan show of support, the Senate voted 67 to 32 to advance the bill, with 17 Republicans joining Democrats to move it forward. The legislation would provide $60.1 billion for Ukraine, $14.1 billion for Israel and $10 billion in humanitarian aid for civilians in global conflicts. But many Republicans were still withholding their backing as they demanded changes to the package, and many others opposed it outright. 'We hope to reach an agreement with our Republican colleagues on amendments,' Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said. 'We are going to keep working on this bill until the job is done.'" (Also linked yesterday
Andrew Kramer & Mark Santora of the New York Times: "President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on Thursday removed his top general as part of a sweeping overhaul of his military command, the most significant shake-up in Ukrainian leadership since Russia invaded almost two years ago. The dismissal ended weeks of speculation about the fate of the commander, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, whose relationship with Mr. Zelensky had deteriorated as Ukraine failed to make a breakthrough in its counteroffensive last summer and fall. Mr. Zelensky was prepared to fire the general 10 days ago before temporarily backing off, Ukrainian officials have said. The upheaval comes at a difficult moment for Ukraine in the war, amid intensified Russian attacks, partisan wrangling in the United States over providing aid to the government in Kyiv and the tensions between Ukraine's civilian and military leadership. General Zaluzhny will be replaced by Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, the head of Ukraine's ground forces, the president said." (Also linked yesterday.)
Anton Troianovski of the New York Times: "Speaking to Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, [Vladimir] Putin called on the United States to 'make an agreement' to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia in order to end the war. He sought to appeal directly to American conservatives just as Republican lawmakers are holding up aid to Ukraine on Capitol Hill, echoing the talking points of politicians like ... Donald J. Trump who say that the United States has more pressing priorities than a war thousands of miles away.... Much of the interview constituted a familiar Kremlin history lesson about Russia's historical claim to Eastern European lands, beginning in the ninth century, that Mr. Putin made little effort to distill for American ears.... Mr. Carlson pressed Mr. Putin to release [Evan] Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal correspondent whom Russia arrested last year on espionage accusations that The Journal and the U.S. government vehemently deny. Mr. Putin said 'the dialogue continues' on his fate, hinting that the Kremlin was holding out for a favorable offer from the United States to release him as part of a prisoner swap."
News Lede
New York Times: "Seiji Ozawa, the high-spirited Japanese conductor who took the Western classical music world by storm in the 1960s and '70s and was music director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra from 1973 to 2002, died on Feb. 6 in Tokyo. He was 88."
Share Article
Reader Comments (23)
Is Loose Cannon the judge overseeing the case of a former president’s* criminal retention and hiding of national security secrets or is she the defendant’s lawyer? Because from here it’s impossible to tell. This latest bullshit is a classic defense lawyer strategy: “Put my guy on trial and I’ll make sure we talk in open court about all kinds of stuff the government wants to keep secret, howdaya like them apples?”
For a newbie judge like Cannon to sniff that a prosecutor like Jack Smith, someone with decades of intense and serious experience, a careful and meticulous practitioner of the law, hasn’t demonstrated proper “sufficiency” is a fucking joke. While Smith was going after international war criminals at The Hague, Cannon was writing puff pieces about yoga and flamenco dancing and sucking up Federalist Society propaganda about the “true role of the law”, which is to sit back and make sure the right side wins. This is like a high school algebra student telling Einstein his math is wrong.
Time for this loose cannon to be pushed off the deck of the ship.
"a majority of the justices indicated that they were prepared to rule that individual states may not disqualify candidates in a national election unless Congress first enacts legislation allowing them to do so"
Geez. And I thought we had a Constitution that says States are to administer elections consistent with said document. What was I thinking????
Marie,
You know what I can never remember? The, uh, thingy. You know the whatchamacallit... the uh... er... What? Huh? Oh phooey. Never mind.
Could be that Joe has the same brain disconnect that I do.
Someone asks me to recall a name or event from about 30 years
ago and my reply will be 'I'll let you know in the morning' and,
sure enough, it usually comes to me.
There must be an explanation for this, but not being a psychologist,
I can't explain it, (or maybe I forgot).
thThe thread running through the Right's--from the halls of Congress to the SCOTUS--many seeming inconsistencies is their abject fear of the democracy those Founders said they had to live in.
That fear pretty much makes sense of it all.
@Forrest Morris: I have an explanation. It comes from empirical data. When I have some kind of problem -- say, like how to hang a straight railing to an uneven wall, I "sleep on it." I make a point of thinking about the problem when I get into bed, and often (though not always), I have the solution in the morning. I devised this technique by coming upon it accidentally -- I'd be worrying about something when I went to bed, and in the morning I had a solution to the something.
I think it's because our brains at rest are more "flexible" or "open-minded" than our brains when constricted by reality. We literally "dream up" solutions to simple problems that our preconceived notions inhibit when we're consciously studying the problems.
There's a reason people suggest "sleeping on it." It works.
Law, Trump version…
Listening to the arguments for and against the Fat Fascist’s inclusion on the ballot in Colorado, I was at first not surprised to hear both Roberts and Thomas coaxing the Trumpy lawyer along like he was a first year law student who was forgetting important points or not making them very successfully. It became even more frustrating when, after the lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, painted himself into a corner, making untrue claims about what the constitution says (do these fucking Trump people have an aversion to actually reading the damn thing?) Uncle Sammy stepped in to bail him out.
“…Justice Samuel Alito came ‘to the rescue’ by ‘restating Mitchell's argument for him since he was flailing.’
Norm Eisen, former ethics czar and longtime legal analyst, observed the same.
‘Alito arguing that self-executing is a misnomer here -- throwing Trump lawyer a lifeline,’ he posted on social media.”
I would be remiss not to point out that this “flailing” Trumpbot hack is the same guy who dreamed up the Texas law that killed Roe even before Alito and company stuck the knife in it. His plan was a classic East German Stasi secret police scheme that took the state out of enforcing his abortion ban by relying on private citizens to spy on neighbors and turn in anyone suspected of having had the procedure.
This bill
“…which Texas enacted in September, 2021, banned abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. Since Roe, such bans had not survived constitutional challenges in court. But, rather than put any state officials in charge of enforcing the ban, Mitchell saw to it that S.B. 8 would empower only private citizens to enforce it, by suing abortion providers (or any aiders and abettors) in state court. Abortion clinics, scared of being sued, largely fell in line, following the new restrictions or closing entirely—even though the legislation clearly defied the Court’s abortion cases. Whole Woman’s Health and others sued Texas officials, in an effort to block the ban, but Mitchell felt confident that they would be unsuccessful, because state officials had no part in enforcing the ban. By his design, there was no defendant to sue—and that meant a law openly flouting the Supreme Court’s constitutional precedents could remain in effect.”
His larger goal has been to nullify the Supreme Court (and all federal courts) if they don’t go along with far right ideological goals:
“That is because his mission is to undermine the Court itself as the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution. He first laid out his arguments in several law-review articles, one of which proposed that legislatures could ‘overcome federal-court rulings’ they oppose by drafting statutes that insulate them from judicial review. He then put his arguments into practice, using abortion as the perfect test case.”
It’s looking like he doesn’t have to worry his gestapo-hat wearing head none. This Supreme Court is self nullifying when it comes to democracy, at least in this case.
I just remembered something else I often don't remember -- that is what I have posted here before. I'll apologize for repeating myself if I can remember to, or that I did.
Time for a nap....
@Ken Winkes: I'll definitely agree that fear is involved, but I think it's less a fear of inconsistency -- though that certainly could be an element -- than it is a fear of the unknown. If you listened to any of the hearing yesterday, what you heard were a bunch of bright law school grads spouting very small-minded rationales couched in what (to me) were obscure Latin terms. It isn't that these judges aren't smart; it's that they're narrow-minded, unwilling to see broader possibilities, unwilling to step into the unknown.
I thought the most impressive person in the room was the Colorado solicitor-general. She very calmly told the justices to get over it; that there were systems in place to deal with all their little anxieties, and they should quit worrying about the "what ifs." The justices seemed petrified to take her advice.
They also seemed afraid to face reality: that is, that the leading candidate for the GOP nomination is a dangerous criminal who tried to overthrow the government by violent means and is likely to try to do so again if he has the opportunity. Instead of grappling with how to prevent another insurrection, they buried their heads in the sand and debated what the meaning of "official" is.
I have a much lower opinion of the Supreme Court today than I did at this time yesterday, when I thought most of them were preening assholes, one of whom likes beer and another of whom likes to drive around in a land yacht.
https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-blackmail-2667192659/
Trump threatens to 'blackmail'biden if he doesn't make charges go
away.
Sounds more like extortion to me. I think extortion is a felony.
Blackmail would be something like threatening to release a picture
of trump in bed with his daughter unless you pay me $2.00.
Anand Giridharadas writes about our changing
bodiescountry and society.Abby Phillip does a concise breakdown of the border bill and talk.
Defunding The enforcers. Corporations have been getting their monies worth with antitrust in the US. The budget actually rose under Biden, but
"So how do political opponents take on a popular agenda? Well, instead of taking it on directly, you do it by being super-boring. Just cut the budget of the entity you don’t like. And indeed, since the turn against antitrust in the 1980s, Congress has been cutting the funding of the Antitrust Division, such that it has 230 fewer employees today than it did in 1979, despite a much larger economy."
Marie,
Exactly. The what ifs are ridiculous, but they mostly come, these days, from a realization that one entire political party is full of vicious, vengeful bullies who threaten all manner of vindictive actions if they don’t get their way.
The DC appeals court that found Trump’s total immunity claims to be ridiculous and without merit (my favorite was their assessment of Fatty’s claim that he had to be successfully impeached before he could be indicted for anything was “irrational” haha) made their ruling per curiam (more Latin). Per curiam (literally “by the court”) is a unanimous verdict, but it’s used to indicate that no one judge made the ruling. Often, one will write the opinion and the others, if they agree, will sign on. Andrew Weissman suggested that in this case, and in fact in any case involving the Orange Menace, a per curiam decision was announced so that no one judge could be singled out for the usual raft of death threats.
Threats of violence, up to and including death, targeting individuals and their families, have become a regular thing on the right when things don’t go their way, still, knuckling under because Trump thugs might go after you or might try to cancel out other candidates on red state ballots is a sure road to a fascist state.
One would hope members of the Supreme Court who are not already fascistically inclined would have the mettle to do the right thing.
Clearly not.
Sometimes it’s not all that difficult to see what’s right. Hiding behind maybes and could bes and what ifs is perhaps not the highway to hell, but it’s a road that runs parallel to it. So what’s the difference?
Surprise! It is the bestest friend of the court.
"Revealed: rightwinger Leonard Leo linked to efforts to keep Trump on ballot
Federalist Society co-chair has ties to the groups arguing in the US supreme court case that Trump should stay on the Colorado ballot"
Yesterday I listened to the entire SCOTUS hearing. What surprised me was how much deference they gave to TFG -- everyone -- not just his attorney, but also the CO guy and the "judges". I was curious about it so I found the transcript this morning and did a word search with specific review for context.
Guess how many times he was referenced as "President Trump"?
Guess how many times he was referenced as "former President Trump"?
49 and 2, respectively.
Like Marie, my opinion of SCOTUS has fallen even farther.
In Missouri there's 24 year old maga-facist, Valentine Gomez,
running for Secretary of State.
She has no experience in government, but she's totally all for burning
books, especially books by LQBTG writers. She is shown using
her favorite method, a flame thrower.
Says she: "I trust only 3 things: The Bible, X, thank you Elon, and
my AR-15."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/missouri-republican-burns-lqbtg-
15513436.html
Ben Franklin looks ever smarter these days...
Correction: It was 42, not 49, to 2.
In light of the recent discussions surrounding the possibility of peace talks between Hamas and the Netanyahu government, I’m considering several things. First, it would be a great thing. Second, Netanyahu won’t go along with it. War, effectively, keeps him in power and out of the courtroom. Like Trump, he’s all about “what’s in it for me?”.
Third, I haven’t heard anything from the Orange Monster about the possibility of peace in Gaza, but I’m betting that if it becomes more than just a tense, inchoate back and forth, he’s likely to establish some kind of back channel with Netanyahu, probably through Mr. Mideast Peace, Jared Kushner, to push for continued war. Why? Chaos. Chaos always helps Trump. Biden has already come under fire, from both sides, over the situation in Gaza, as if he could personally stop it. If it looks bad for Biden, Trump will want to ramp that up as much as possible so that he can make his usual ridiculous claim, as he’s made about Ukraine, that he can fix everything in 24 hours, but only if he’s re-elected.
Trump has more than adequately demonstrated his astonishing disregard for human life and national security interests by deep sixing the border deal. He’d have no problem stepping over the bodies of innocent children in Gaza if it meant a return to the White House.
And to support my second concern, I see a report that Netanyahu is preparing another scorched earth attack in Gaza.
For all their trumpeted religiosity, right wingers have never really cared much about peace on earth, never mind goodwill to men. And forget women! Them bitches better get off birth control and git back in the kitchen. Or maybe the theater, where they can vape, shout at others, and jerk off their boyfriends.
Merrick Garland is a complete fucking disaster. Instead of going after a criminal and traitor in an expeditious manner, he waits two full years, but when it’s time to investigate a real President who’s doing his job, he hops to and sends an attack dog after him.
So, to sum up, he drags his feet going after a traitor who’s actions caused death and who has announced his intentions to be a dictator if re-elected, and by releasing a report that harms Biden, he gives the traitor more ammunition to help him get back into power.
Way to go, Merrick. Here’s your MAGA hat. Wear it with pride.
Marie,
Thanks. Yeah, it's been a long time since the SCOTUS distinguished itself, legally or morally.
Per usual, could have better said what I was after, so I'll try again.
Not fear of inconsistency, but fear of democracy was what I was trying to say.
When it comes to states' rights, for only one instance, the R's top to bottom at the federal level legislate and decide both for and against them. It just depends on the issue and how it will play out. If the state wishes to empower voters, they're agin it. If it empowers workers, the same. If it empowers consumers, forget it. One SCOTUS decision after another confirms the pattern. Even a whiff of power to the people sends then running.
Each time out, regardless (tho I admit an exception or two I can't think of at the moment) the R's decide in favor the the powerful and privileged and pick on the vulnerable. If that leads to apparent inconsistency, as it often does, they don't care? Hypocrisy is necessarily the Right's modus operandi and is their unwillingness to deal with the real issues of where the nation is.
The Federalist Society is properly named. Its products protect and defend money and corporate power. Even the major embarrassment of those rude MAGAs they now find themselves uncomfortably allied with will not move them to change in any fundamental way. They are too tied to privilege, and afraid of democracy.
And speaking of federal stuff, if the Court decides as it seems it will and claims national elections are a federal, not a state, responsibility, doesn't that mean lawsuits demanding consistent voting rules for federal election would have more standing?
Or am I just grasping at the will-o-the-wisp of consistency again?
BTW, I'd also unhesitatingly put the Hur hit job in the same category.
Taking gratuitous swipes at a president who has done so much to reverse the damage done by the Pretender is a clear declaration that Hur would prefer more attacks on the EPA, a retrograde NLRB, no consumer protection...and....in other words less democracy and more power arrogated to the top of the corporate, social and economic ladder.
Because, of course, only they deserve it.
Everyone has posted true and valuable comments about the crap being flung around by the R monkeyhouse. I guess I had sort of relaxed a bit, but now am back to anger and disbelief and and anxiety about both the SC circus and the crazypants report accusing the president of senility and dundering blockhead stuff having to do with boxes of paperwork. The press is playing gotcha, screaming insults and questions and insulting questions at him last night, and right now as a press conference with whiners complaining about the report. Why is it that no matter what one side presents or talks about or asserts, it is received with glee and happiness and slobbery kisses, and the other side (mine and ours--) gets nothing but s***, no matter what? This guy Hur is a trumpie through and through, and I cannot respect him or Garland. The supremes really covered themselves in the self-listed s*** and we might as well not even think that the three "liberals" were worth listening to yesterday. I heard the MSNBC lawyers say that CO's lawyer was lousy, so how did that happen? And let's not even start in on the baby Florida lawyer, crazy Cannon. Today is a terrible day. Let the drinking begin.