Tag CNN

The truth shall set you free

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

One nice thing about Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the race for president and to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for the job – and then her enthusiasm for the task as she began to gather more support among Democrats nationwide, plus the wall to wall coverage of those efforts – has been the brief respite we’ve enjoyed from hearing TFG’s constant attacks and whining complaints about…well, everything.  Even The New York Times has noticed, and immediately sought to give the Republican nominee something of a make-good by doing a story about the fact that he wasn’t getting stories done about him.

It’s an unfamiliar experience for Mr. Trump, who has monopolized America’s televisions, newspapers and smartphones for more than 12 months through indictments, primary victories, 34 felony convictions, an assassination attempt and a Republican National Convention at which he was celebrated as a quasi-religious figure.

In the three days since President Biden announced he was quitting the 2024 race, Mr. Trump has entered foreign territory. He has been largely crowded out from “earned media,” or organic news coverage that spreads rapidly among voters and costs campaigns nothing to produce. And his message has been, for the moment, scrambled as Democrats have replaced an old, frail white man with a younger Black woman who is campaigning energetically and giving new life to the Democratic base.

(snip)

The Trump team was not unprepared. They had planned for the possibility of Mr. Biden’s dropping out, produced anti-Harris videos and tested her vulnerabilities in private polls. But they were still somewhat surprised when Mr. Biden actually did it. Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers thought he seemed too stubborn — “too Irish,” one aide said — to buckle to the pressure to quit a race against a man he viscerally hated and believed he was best positioned to defeat.

And they were caught off guard by the speed and ruthless efficiency of the replacement. They figured that if he did quit, Democrats would have to stumble through at least a few weeks of turmoil as ambitious Democrats jostled for their shot at the national stage.

(snip)

Mr. Trump was furious about the switch. He complained it was unfair that Democrats were forcing him to start over with a new opponent after he had spent all that time and money fighting Mr. Biden.

Boo-hoo.  What are you, five years old?  “They’re not being fair to me, they’re not being nice.”  Try to act like an adult instead of an entitled narcissist who doesn’t want to play the game unless it’s rigged…who keeps telling the same disproved lies over and over because you’ve got nothing else to say.

Which reminds me, I have a suggestion for anyone who finds themselves trying to argue some point or other with a Trump-ish opponent primed with the standard firehose of falsehoods: don’t think you have to fully refute every single specious argument they make.  You can take the trouble to point out the error, but they aren’t going to accept your argument – they will respond with another lie.  Trump does this all the time.  Instead, use forensic judo on them: respond to their torrent of lies with truths: fill the air with the good facts and let the leaden falsehoods from the MAGA mouths thud to the floor.

If you’re a supporter of Kamala Harris, deny the false attack on her and proudly reply with her true position on the issue.  No candidate for office, ever, has had a position on each issue that satisfies all potential voters.  On some things, we just disagree; that’s OK.  She is not running for God, and she doesn’t have to agree with you on every single topic to be a good president.  She starts with one insurmountable advantage: her election as president keeps Trump out of office and stymies efforts to implement the Project 2025 goals that the criminal Trump denies knowing anything about.  Which is, of course, another Trump lie.  (Add that to the more than 30,000 documented lies he told while he was president, or the 30 more “false claims” he managed to squeeze in during less than 90 minutes on stage in last month’s debate.)

If you feel you must knock down the stupid argument, here is a new, handy, fact-check sheet with to-the-point refutations for the usual false claims about job creation, inflation, tax cuts, government debt, tariffs, Ukraine, immigration, crime, and who is the worst president of all time.  (I think you know where that one is going.)

This is not your Founding Fathers’ America

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

When we feel our treatment by our rulers has become so intolerable, so unjust – so inhumane – that we must declare our independence among the peoples and nations of the world, it just makes sense that we should explain to the rest of the world why we are doing it.  Here goes.

–Pat’s paraphrase of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence

The Founding Fathers then laid out the Declaration of Independence of the 13 “united States of America” which included the self-evident truths of the “unalienable” rights that they believed are the birthright of all humans.  Point by point, they laid out their grievances against George III and insisted they had made every good faith effort to resolve differences peacefully.  They explained that they had appealed to the goodness and mercy of “our British brethren” to end the mistreatment from which they suffered, but found them unresponsive.  And in light of those facts, they declared to the world that they and their fellow Americans were going into business for themselves.  The war that had begun the previous year was concluded by treaty in 1783; by 1787 a new Constitution of the United States was approved on behalf of the people of the new nation “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”.

That legal framework set out principles to guide our development and our lives, including the principle that no man is above the law.  That idea had a pretty run there, right up until last Monday when the Supreme Court of the United States decided that presidents and former presidents of this great country were effectively kings or queens.  And despots, if they choose to be.

Immunity from prosecution.  The Justice Department has a policy that no sitting president can be prosecuted while in office, but there was no law that said that, and nothing explicit in the Constitution says a former president is immune from prosecution for officials acts taken while in office.  The high-minded concept was that a president was a person given certain powers to exercise – temporarily – on behalf of his country and in its best interests, and who would then return to his life as a regular citizen.  Would President Gerald Ford have granted Richard Nixon a pardon after his resignation over Watergate crimes if anyone had thought that the former president was immune from prosecution?  No one before has ever had the temerity to claim he had immunity from prosecution…or quite frankly, the need for immunity…before you know who.

A man made famous as much for his over-use and abuse of the legal system as for his dubious business skills that necessitated all the suing and threats of suing had nothing to lose and everything to gain (and no shame) by making an unsupported legal claim that had the desired effect of delaying his trial on felony charges of trying to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election.  The trial court judge hearing this case rejected the claim of immunity, so did a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court…well, the Supremes (1) surprised many when they agreed to hear the case at all, causing a delay until (2) they heard oral arguments April 24 and then (3) “deliberated” the rest of April, all of May and all of June – more than nine weeks – before issuing the ruling.  Guess it takes a while to create a whole new right not found in the Constitution, especially when you had said yourself, under oath, that such a right did not exist:

https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1808191057236000975
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1807835389865951253
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1807855254006124944

Hmmm…same folks who said Roe v. Wade was settled precedent. Interesting…

The idea proposed by Trump lawyers in oral arguments was that immunity is needed to protect former presidents from being corruptly prosecuted by their successors; whether or not that is true, there was no such right in the Constitution until this court created it with this ruling.  When was the last time you saw a former president pursued in the legal system by a previous president?  (If you said Biden is doing it to Trump right now, that is the wrong answer; he’s not.)  You haven’t seen it before: not even the lawless Trump went after Barack Obama or his other predecessors!  The assertion that this is a real and dangerous prospect is based on nothing in law or custom or history; it is a projection from Trump’s narcissistic personality disorder wherein he knows what he wants to do to Joe Biden and to every other perceived enemy, and his fevered brain assumes that’s how everyone else operates, too.

Not only did the court create a right that wasn’t there (don’t you just hate those activist judges that Republicans have been warning us about?) but, as argued by Thomas Wolf of the Brennan Center for Justice, “The Court has created an elaborate system of ambiguous rules that will not only ratchet up the complexity of the case against Trump but also erode the checks on presidential illegality. It is both a roadblock to prosecution and an encouragement to more insurrection.”

The procedures the Court has crafted to go with [the new rule] are pitched in Trump’s favor. Whenever the case returns to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s trial court, Trump will be presumed immune by default; the burden will be on the prosecution to establish that he isn’t. The Court’s definition of “official acts” cuts extremely broadly, stretching to “the outer perimeter of [Trump’s] official responsibility.” (The Court refused to say exactly where that perimeter ends.) The prosecution must show that prosecuting Trump for those official acts “would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions” of the presidency (emphasis added). The prosecution won’t be able to claim an official act was “unofficial” because of the president’s motives for doing it. (emphasis added) And Trump can seek another round of appellate review if the trial court doesn’t rule him immune. Should the government clear these hurdles, it won’t be able to use the “testimony or private records of [Trump] or his advisors” about official acts to prove his guilt. (emphasis added)

The Court justifies all this new complexity as necessary to protect imaginary future presidents from imaginary future prosecutions. It does not, critically, justify it as a response to the acts of the real and credibly accused former president in the case before it. Just as members of the Court’s conservative supermajority consistently steered the conversation at oral argument away from Trump’s charges, they do not even try to grapple with the bigger implications of applying their new rule to the case in front of them or the consequences if their rule ultimately lets Trump skate. Instead, the Court bows out of the case with the tidy but myopic claim that it “cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies,” lest “transient results” threaten “the future of our Republic.”

The Court doesn’t engage with the ramifications of its opinion, because it can’t — at least not without exposing the fundamental bankruptcy of the whole edifice it has just built. The majority’s ruling cannot possibly be the rule for any functioning democracy. Trump has been charged with attempting to overthrow the election that threw him out of office. Any rule that would grant a president immunity for that crime would remove the principal check on presidential abuses of authority in our democratic system: the vote. And it would encourage other losing candidates to try the same in future elections. (emphasis added)  It is in this sense that the Court’s opinion is truly lawless. It does not merely invent constitutional rules that are antithetical to our founding commitments or enduring values. It threatens to free presidents from the constraints of law and democracy. And it paves the way for future presidents to try to make good on the most antidemocratic of all propositions: might makes right.

In reaching to resolve future imagined cases of presidential criminality while downplaying the actual criminality before it, the Court has imperiled accountability for Trump’s wrongs. It has done severe violence to our law. And it has left our democracy exposed.

Look at what Trump did while president – I mean, just the things we know he did – when there was no presumption of immunity from later prosecution; just what the hell do you think he’ll do next time if given the chance?   What about his calls for televised military tribunals of Liz Cheney and other enemies?  Immunity!  What about all the assaults on our system being planned by his supporters behind Project 2025?  Immunity!

And what about this threat from the president of the Heritage Foundation that “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”?  Uh, do what we want and you won’t be hurt?  Really?

And this whole depressing development comes on the heels of a televised “debate” in which we saw one candidate for president lie his ass off for 90 minutes and the other look like an elderly deer caught in the headlights; Biden is now telling Democratic governors he’s fine but needs to stop working by 8 p.m.  I got the feeling this is going to get even weirder.

83 millions reasons to be happy

Pat Ryan 1 Comment

If it is true that we like to see good things happen to good people, I suppose it’s also true that we like to see bad things happen to bad people.  I know I do.  So today is a very happy day indeed, to see that a New York jury has awarded $83.3 million in damages to the writer suing Donald Trump for “defaming her in social media posts, news conferences and even on the campaign trail ever since she first accused him in 2019 of raping her in a department store dressing room decades earlier.”  Most of that, $65 million, is punitive damages – punishment for the defendant’s conduct.  Well done, sir!

I’d be stunned (shocked, like Claude Rains was) if Trump ever paid the money – he has a long history of delaying and deferring and settling lawsuits for pennies on the dollar with adversaries who’d rather take something than nothing at all – but it is heartening any time he doesn’t get his way with his bullying and bloviating and insistent lying.  Lying, like just last night, when he repeated his worn-out self-defense of the original rape/sexual assault allegation, insisting “I don’t even know who this woman is.  I have no idea who she is, where she came from.”  In present tense.  Really?  Even if that were true years ago when the accusation was first made, how can you honestly claim today that you do not now know who she is?  Is telling the truth just that hard for you?  (“I know you lie, your lips are moving…”)

This has also been an opportunity for the former guy to give us another demonstration – as if we needed one – of his wide-ranging ignorance.  He used his own social media service this afternoon to say he disagrees with all the verdicts in this case, that he will appeal today’s decision on damages, that he blames Democrats for the suit in the first place (huh?), and that some unspecified “they” have “taken away all First Amendment rights,” presumably by limiting his testimony in court and restricting some of the witnesses his lawyers wanted to call.  Of course, “they” have not and did not do that.  At all.  But you knew that.

You knew that the First Amendment right to free speech does not mean that we are all endowed with the right to say any thing we want, at any time we want, any where we want, to any body we want, and that no one can do any thing about it.  The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring your speech or other expressions of opinion, unless the speech in question falls into one of the categories which the courts have determined are NOT protected: child pornography, or a solicitation to commit a crime, for instance…or in this case, speech that is defamatory.

Judges have a right to run their courts; a higher court can punish this one if he is found to have violated the law.  Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen in this case.

Meanwhile, there are more courts hearing cases against you know who: the judge in the New York civil fraud trial against Trump and his business promised a ruling before the end of the month, and then there are the rest of the now-famous 91 indictments, including the it-seems-really-clear-he-did-it classified documents case in Florida.  AND some Republicans are starting to admit, publicly, that Trump’s acknowledged efforts to get the GOP to refuse to compromise with Democrats to pass an immigration bill…

…Trump has been lobbying Republicans both in private conversations and in public statements on social media to oppose the border compromise being delicately hashed out in the Senate, according to GOP sources familiar with the conversations – in part because he wants to campaign on the issue this November and doesn’t want President Joe Biden to score a victory in an area where he is politically vulnerable.

…are bad for the party and bad for the country.  Of course, what is good for the party and good for the country have never been priorities for the former guy.

We all saw it; we know what happened

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

“[Today marks] three years since thousands of Americans, lied to by the president of the United States and their elected representatives, perpetrated an assault on the building that has come to symbolize democracy across the globe, and the men and women who work on its grounds.  That’s not an opinion. It’s not an interpretation. It’s not one side of a debate. It is an unequivocal, demonstrable fact.”

Phil Mattingly of CNN stated it plainly, not to be misconstrued.  We all saw it for ourselves, plain as day on our TV screens: there was no doubt that armed protesters were attacking the Capitol.  That’s even what we heard from many members of Congress who were in the building at the time and experienced it first hand.

https://twitter.com/CNNThisMorning/status/1743274757796040901

I’m old enough to remember when it would have been stunning – unthinkable – to see some of those who lived through the attack on the Capitol from the inside completely change their story, now unashamedly insisting that we are being fooled by the evidence provided by our own eyes and ears.  Today, it’s another sad shoulder shrug as we witness a continuing assault on truth.  The Washington Post lays out the numbers from a recent national poll in which “a majority of Americans believe the events of Jan. 6 were an attack on democracy and should never be forgotten,” and yet…

…on the third anniversary of the nation’s first interruption to the peaceful transfer of power since the Civil War era, Republicans’ attitudes about Jan. 6 are increasingly unmoored from other Americans, and Trump holds a commanding lead in the race for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

The share of Republicans who said the Jan. 6 protesters who entered the Capitol were “mostly violent” dipped to 18 percent from 26 percent in December 2021, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll. More than half of independents and about three-quarters of Democrats, on the other hand, believe the protesters were “mostly violent,” numbers that have remained largely unchanged over time, the poll found.

That’s good, but even that means almost half of people who consider themselves independents and about one-quarter of self-identified Democrats do not believe the protesters were “mostly violent.”  Why not?  Have they never watched the video?!?  OK, here’s some for you:

I call your attention in particular to the 11:48 mark where we hear the president’s voice describing what he had been watching on television for more than three hours without ever sending help for law enforcement; he says “They were peaceful people, these were great people.  The crowd was unbelievable.  And I mentioned the word ‘love.’  The love, the love in the air, I’ve never seen anything like it.”  There is no better example to prove that just because the president says something doesn’t make it true, and in the case of this president the fact that he said it makes it far more likely that it is not true.

I guess…I guess that the people who can watch that video and not see an assault on the American government are some of the same kinds of people who could have been persuaded that it was their “patriotic duty” to participate in that attack in the first place.  For the rest of us, this fight isn’t over yet.

Editorial: Three years later, beware dangerous revisionism of Jan. 6

The real RINOs

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Today’s Republican Party claims to be the only truly patriotic, fully America-loving and God-fearing political party in the country, the one that will protect regular America-loving and God-fearing citizens from the perfidies of big gummint and make the country, well, you-know-what again.  So, how are they doing with that today?

Well, as I write this we are just hours away from the gummint shutting down much of its operations because Congress cannot pass the legislation needed to pay the bills.  But not because the Congress and the president haven’t been able to come to a compromise: this past May President Biden and House Speaker McCarthy did agree on total spending levels through 2024.  It’s that some Republicans in the House refuse to accept the deal.  If there is no agreement by the deadline we can all look forward to enjoying life with only “essential services” from Washington.  If you are a government worker (as I was) who is deemed essential (as I was not), you get to keep working but not be paid for it; non-essential workers just get furloughed.

So much for Republicans looking out for the average, America-loving, God-fearing citizen.

What Republicans are doing instead of keeping the government running smoothly is kicking off an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.  Against whom they have no evidence – zero – of his commission of an impeachable offense.  Who brought witnesses who say they don’t see it, either:  Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor, said “In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment.”  The same Republicans who screeched that Democrats were weaponizing impeachment against the former guy (who was as innocent as the day is long during his presidency, they insisted, and who is just being victimized by 91 criminal and civil indictments (so far) in his post-presidency) are only doing the Lord’s work in rooting out corruption in government.

The weird thing is, the same Republicans who are trying to use the mechanisms of government to impeach a president of the other party (albeit one who faces no substantiated allegations of any wrongdoing) are the same ones who by obstinately refusing to compromise on a spending plan will force much of that same government to close up shop for an indefinite period.  (Although, not Congress or their investigation.)  This is not, historically, what the Republican Party has been about.

The Grand Old Party was organized in the early 1850s as a coalition opposed to the expansion of slavery into new states and territories, and after the Civil War its majority in Congress –- the Radical Republicans -– passed laws to, among other things, protect the rights of freed slaves.  While Democrats in the South worked to chip away at the Reconstruction reforms, Republicans became more and more associated with the interests of business; some also supported (gasp!) progressive efforts for social reforms.

The growth of the federal government through the New Deal period and World War II encouraged more and more Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights for blacks (and other non-whites) and most expanded government programs to move to the Republican Party, where they joined up with conservative Christians stirred to action by opposition to “culture issues” that they were persuaded were threatening the “Christian nation” that God had intended America to be.  These elements came to control the party…or at least they did until they handed over the keys to a circus clown from New York.

Today those Republicans who are part of “MAGA nation” – polls say they are less than 25% of the nation as a whole — seem ever so pleased with themselves any time they get the opportunity to act-out as childish name-callers; one of their favorites is to brand a fellow Republican with whom they have some disagreement on a point of policy, no matter how trivial, as being a Republican In Name Only.  (How clever.)  But they are the real RINOs, who have succeeded in taking control of a once-respected political organization and philosophy and turned it into a vehicle (a clown car?) for instituting their warped social views into law.  It’d be a lot funnier if they weren’t so successful.