Category Funny

Fact is, this tortured abuse of the legal process is likely only the beginning

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

OK then, I guess up is down, right is left, the sun sets in the north and I was People Magazine’s Sexiest Man of the Year in 1984 (a test of concept, before rolling out Mel Gibson the next year).  That we now live in Bizarro World is the only reasonable explanation for how Donald Trump’s Justice Department today could – with a straight face – ask a federal court “to block certification of the Senate election in Alaska if the Republican incumbent loses.” [emphasis added]

The Justice Department, in a court filing, argued that confusion over another candidate on the ballot with a name very similar to the incumbent, Senator Dan S. Sullivan, could taint the election result. Mr. Sullivan is in what polls suggest is a close race against Mary Peltola, a Democrat, but the ballot also features Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

A number of tight races across the country, including Alaska, could tip the balance of power in the Senate. The legal gambit also comes shortly after the administration sued the state of California over what it claims are 20,000 “likely noncitizens” on the state’s voter roll.

David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan group that advises election officials, said he could not recall a similar instance in which the federal government sought to block certification of an election, “and certainly not 11 days before an election.” The issue of another candidate with a similar name has already been addressed by state officials, he said.

“D.O.J. making this claim this late smells of political interference and is against D.O.J. policy,” Mr. Becker said. “The feds have absolutely no authority to tell Alaska when and how to certify. The state officials are following Alaska state law, as the Constitution requires.” He said he expected the courts to reject the administration’s lawsuit.

Did DOJ argue that confusion might also work the other way, that voters who would have otherwise elected the other Dan Sullivan might be confused into voting for the incumbent senator?  That that might be another reason to stall certification until the confusion could be sorted out?  No, no it did not.  The new politically-supercharged Department of Justice (We Punish Trump’s Enemies; Just You Try Us!) has bravely stepped up to try to protect a poor, defenseless Republican senator from suffering at the hands of the stupid voters of his own state.  And it did so because, apparently, Trump himself told them to do it.  This would be the most pathetic example of the tortured relationship with the concept of truth by people living in Trumpworld that I found in the news today were it not for the sad claim that Melania Trump brokered a ceasefire in Ukraine.  Yes, that  Melania Trump.

Remember, Donald Trump has the emotional maturity of a two year old and cannot admit to losing, or even to making a mistake.  That he is trying to corrupt the conduct of this election in the hope he can steal enough races to maintain his control of the Congress is a given.  That he is doing so while simultaneously sowing the seeds for the excuses he’ll rely on later to blame others for the loss…well, that dexterity may be his only remarkable talent.

Just a few helpful suggestions

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

The lack of enthusiastic support – or any support at all, really – for the current American president found within and among this blog’s posts might lead one to believe I am a withered, cranky, “no fun” sort with all the redeeming social characteristics of a cadaver.  The poster coot for the “get off my lawn” model of Americans.  But it’s not true: I’m actually quite friendly and eager to help out anyone any time I can.  For example, while watching TV “news” stories about recent actions being taken by the Administration, it dawned on me that perhaps no one bothered to clearly explain to TFG just what it is that a president of the United States is supposed to do and, more importantly, what such a president is not supposed to do.  I’d like to help!

For example, presidents don’t seek to “punish” other sovereign countries (especially ones that are our friends and biggest trading partners) because the leader of some political subdivision of that country (like a provincial premier or a state governor) runs a television ad critical of the American president’s economic policy.  Whether the ad was truthful or not.  An autocrat would do something like that.

Presidents don’t – unilaterally, without warning, and without prior consultation with allies – launch unprovoked, lethal military strikes against private vessels in international waters without presenting to the world the incontrovertible evidence of that vessel and its crew’s threat to American interests.  A lawless tyrant would do that.

Presidents don’t presume to dictate to the leaders of other sovereign nations how to wage war or how to end war.  Only a…well, only a would-be dictator would try that.

Presidents don’t believe they have leeway to significantly alter, or destroy, historic artifacts in order to erect gaudy monuments to their almighty selves (even when they say the costs will be paid by private donations; a scheme ripe for corruption) without even a show of a cursory consultation with appropriate government officials.  That sounds like something a megalomaniac would do.

Presidents don’t tell transparently false stories about the conditions in their country as an excuse to send their nation’s armies into their own cities against their own citizens to put down peaceful protests and intimidate political opponents.  Totalitarians do stuff like that.

Presidents don’t misuse the routine processes of self-governance to re-set the conditions of an upcoming election they fear they will lose.  Cowardly losers try to rewrite the rules of the game.

Presidents may indeed be the driving force behind the construction of patriotic symbols recognizing the greatness of their country, but they don’t reflexively presume to name those edifices after themselves or fire public officials who have the authority to alter what could easily be interpreted as self-aggrandizing plans.  But, boy oh boy, narcissists sure do.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the Commission on Fine Arts is terminated, effective immediately,” reads an email reviewed by The Post that was sent to one of the commissioners by a staffer in the White House presidential personnel office.

(And if you want to fire people who work for you, a president has the guts to do the dirty work themselves.  Especially if they are a president who invaded the public consciousness in a brainless television offering in which their very very macho catchphrase was “you’re fired.”)

When the do-nothing (without TFG’s approval) Congress lets appropriations authority lapse and forces the government to shut down, presidents don’t use that as an excuse to take “unprecedented, and even illegal, steps during the shutdown to inflict unnecessary damage to public services and investments, the federal workers who deliver them, and the public who depends on them.”  But a con man would…and they would really hate it when the courts step in to stop them.

See, it was easy to be friendly and offer good-natured, non-accusatory assistance.  I feel good!  If any similar instances of possible misunderstanding turn up in the future, I’ll be happy to try to help out.  It’s what I do.

I love a parade, but not this

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

I did not attend Saturday’s military parade in Washington, D.C, or even watch it on TV or watch the news coverage of it. I was hoping it would be a dud, that most people wouldn’t be interested in TFG’s self-indulgent display…turns out, that may be exactly what happened. Charles P. Pierce attended in person, and he wrote down some thoughts that have been published in Esquire including “I have never experienced such a joyless, lifeless, and sterile mass event in my entire life.”

I remember when parades used to be fun—bands, bunting, some big Army boom-booms for the kids to cheer over, every high school bandmaster doing their best Robert Preston cosplay. I remember when they were ceremonies of communal joy. You could mark your calendar by them. Homecoming parades. Veterans Day, which was Armistice Day when I was very young. Macy’s and Gimbel’s and Hudson’s on TV every Thanksgiving and the Rose Parade on TV for New Year’s. Memorial Day. The Fourth of July. All of them were supposed to honor something or someone, provided you could see past the cotton candy.

And then there was this leaden spectacle on Saturday, June 14.

(snip)

Grim-faced soldiers, marching past half-empty grandstands, many of them obviously wanting to be somewhere else. No bands. Little bunting. Just piped-in rock music and MAGA hats. If this truly was meant to honor the 250 years of the United States Army, all we got was an endless procession of uniformed troops looking like they’d prefer to have been at Valley Forge. The president, sitting on the reviewing stand in that weird, forward-leaning attitude that he has, rarely smiling, a skunk at his own garden party. Scores of people being funneled through cattle-runs of metal grates just for a chance to sit on the lawn of the Washington Monument and listen to bad music and speeches so dull and listless that they’d have made Demosthenes get out of the business and open an olive oil stand. I think there probably was more good feeling and genuine emotion when they took Jack Kennedy out to Arlington for the last time.

(snip)

A lot of the people waiting in line were watching on their phones, watching the coverage of the No Kings marches all around the country. Now, those were parades—laughter and singing and chanting and people in goofy costumes and exotic hair-colors, thousands of them, big cities and small towns. The streets were jammed with people celebrating the hope that this Grand Guignol period of our national life will pass one day. There was no hope in the streets of Washington. Just tanks and cannons and soldiers marching in dead-eyed cadence.

Just a taste; there’s more and it’d be worth your while to give it a read.

Recommended election reading, for those inexplicably eager for more election news

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

This week both The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post issued the surprise announcement that they will endorse no one in the race for president this year.  Those decisions were made by the owners of the newspapers, who in that capacity have every legal right to make the choice they did.  Just not the moral and ethical rights, not if they want their newspapers to mean anything to the readers they claim to serve.

In the case of the LA Times, as the editorial board prepared a series of editorials leading to an endorsement of California native and former state attorney general and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, it got a message from owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, “with scant internal or public explanation, abruptly vetoing the planned endorsement, informing the board through an intermediary that The Los Angeles Times would make no recommendation in the presidential race.”  Through an intermediary?  Dude didn’t have the guts to deliver the news face to face?  The story at the above link has more.

The choice at the Washington Post, which was expected to endorse the Democratic candidate, too, was to cease any endorsements in presidential elections from now on; it was announced by the paper’s publisher and framed as a choice to maintain neutrality.  That choice has been interpreted as an effort by the owner, Jeff Bezos, to avoid antagonizing the former guy; the Post itself has published the very critical reactions of 17 of its own opinion columnists under this declaration:

The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution. [emphasis added]

Plenty of other papers are making endorsements, of course, including my hometown Houston Chronicle and my birthtown New York Times, both of whom are encouraging a vote for Harris.  And here are a few other recommended readings:

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson with a vivid reminder of the double standard we’ve developed for covering the two major party candidates: high scrutiny for the woman candidate, and a kind of same-old same-old attitude when the former guy “spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish.”

In Slate, Steven Greenhouse with the consideration that the unfathomable (to some) closeness of this contest can be blamed on the richest of the rich Americans who are prioritizing their personal financial well being over the betterment of our country.

At The Bulwark, Will Saletan’s tight summation of just what – specifically – Trump is doing that warrants him being labelled – accurately – as a fascist.

And a lively reminder from The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart of the it-would-be-amusing-if-it-weren’t-so-dangerous reality that the former president is, in point of fact, demonstrably not many the things that his loyal army of supporters say are their reasons for voting for him.  He is, in fact, the opposite of what they say he is, but they can’t/won’t see that.  Sad.

Fingers crossed, hoping for the best

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

A few thoughts while waiting for the New York jury to return a verdict in the business fraud/election interference trial of you know who:

I hate it every time a news report refers to Donald Trump’s “Hush Money Trial.”  Not only is it inaccurate and lazy, but it plays into his overheated claim that he’s being persecuted, that there was no crime committed.

  • It is NOT against the law to have sex with a porn actor.  Of the many things it may be (and you have your own list of the things that it is), “against the law” is not one of them.  I pray we don’t return to an age in this country where it is against the law for consenting adults to engage in some non-hurtful behaviors.
  • It is NOT against the law to pay hush money.  Blackmail is a crime, for the person committing it; it’s not illegal for you to pay money to keep someone from telling a secret about you.
  • It is NOT even a crime to use your private company’s funds to pay that hush money, provided your paper trail does not lie about the use of the money.  Your investors or directors probably won’t like it much and may take action against you, but it’s not business fraud.  (And if Trump is SOOO rich, as he claims, why didn’t he just write a check himself and not get the company money involved?  I know, hindsight is 20/20.)

BUT, if you doctor your company’s books to falsify the record about why the money was spent – like, saying it was “legal fees” when it was really reimbursing an employee for fronting you the hush money to conceal a private matter – that IS a crime.  It is business fraud in New York, and that is the crime the Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting.  It became a major felony when, in this case, the fraud was committed to advance another crime: improperly interfering with the 2016 presidential election by covering up information that could harm Trump’s chances.  (Man, isn’t it hard to get your head around the idea that it was Trump and Republicans who actually were committing the election fraud, not the liberals and the illegals?)

Lately I’ve been running across many clever, funny, and to-the-point posts that take the varnish off of efforts to obscure what Trump has done, and what he promises to do if elected.  On ABC’s This Week George Stephanopoulos had a terrific summary as the current trial began.

GOnN-WNXcAAD5my

Last week Jennifer Rubin had a good roundup of Trump’s pratfall-filled week leading up to the trial’s closing arguments, including his not-unexpected cop-out when it came to fulfilling his repeated promise to testify in his own defense (something that I know no defense lawyer wants a client with a total lack of self-control and a well-documented history of serial lying to do).

Finally, Trump predictably chickened out of testifying. He repeatedly boasted he would testify, but like so many other attempts to look tough, this one fizzled into the ether. The episode underscored his cowardice and fragility. At some level, he likely knew that if he had taken the stand, he would have wound up either perjuring himself, digging his own legal grave or both.

What explains these serial debacles? This is who Trump is. He cozies up to neo-Nazis and white nationalists, so naturally he attracts aides with the mind-set to borrow material from fascists. He has contempt for women and tries to please his white Christian nationalist base at every turn; unsurprisingly, he has no idea where to stop and how far is too far. And he bullies his lawyers, insisting on making dumb arguments and calling witnesses he thinks are swell but who implode under examination. (And because he surrounds himself with disreputable charlatans and yes-men, one can hardly be surprised when they reveal their true character.)

For all Trump’s braggadocio, it may be that he just isn’t all that bright, cannot think strategically beyond the moment and lacks any common sense. Without aides or family members empowered to stop him from colossal missteps, he racks up the blunders. And perhaps like a good many bullies, he really does fear taking a punch.

GONmYbbWgAAAmpP

GOR52y_X0AA1_J_

Trump’s family, which finally began to trickle in to the courthouse to act like they support him, joined in the family business – lying to our faces – when Eric Trump clearly and cleanly misstated the facts:

And beyond the current trial, the situation has become severe enough to get the historian and documentarian Ken Burns off the political sideline; he had this warning to America during a commencement speech at Brandeis University.

https://twitter.com/Mollyploofkins/status/1794455333764538763

Just a couple more..I can’t resist:

https://twitter.com/AnnieForTruth/status/1795772810520117719
https://twitter.com/TheReelRandom/status/1795769741593714898
https://twitter.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1795848109752217919