Author: clearandpresentdanger

Lot of empty seats at Trump rally in Reading, PA.  The arena has 7,200 seats.

 

Donald Trump’s failing social media company forced executives and staffers out due to a whistleblower complaint, and con-artists have stolen millions of dollars from Truth Social users.

Let’s talk about what Donald Trump means when he says that abortion will be “up to the states”: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration is threatening television stations that run ads for Amendment 4 with misdemeanor charges. Just when I think I’ve lost my ability to be shocked!

The Florida Department of Health sent a letter to WFLA TV, telling its vice president that running the Amendment 4 ad—which features a woman talking about her experience with a doomed pregnancy—puts people’s health and lives at risk. The letter threatens that if the station doesn’t remove the TV spot, the state will move ahead with legal proceedings and that breaking the law could lead to misdemeanor charges.

It doesn’t get more clearcut than this. As Nikki Fried, chair of the Florida Democratic Party, tweeted, “Floridians, THIS is not democracy!”

“We do not live in a free state, free of government interference, free of government intimidation and free of government overreach,” she said.

And as journalist Jason Garcia notes, this letter comes at the same time that DeSantis is using taxpayer dollars to run ads attacking Amendment 4 everywhere from ESPN and CNN to the fucking Weather Channel. (Using the power of state agencies to lobby against a citizen initiative is against the law, but a judge ruled in favor of DeSantis regardless last week.)

Here’s the ad DeSantis doesn’t want Floridians to see:

Former President Donald Trump’s rambling and increasingly angry speeches focused on the past have increased concerns about his age and fitness to serve another term in the White House.

The 78-year-old former president has recently suggested there was an audience at his September 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris — THERE WAS NO AUDIENCE AT THE SEP 10 DEBATE.

He has claimed that North Korea is attempting to assassinate him when he’s likely to have meant Iran. He misspeaks and misremembers things to such a degree that it no longer appears to garner much attention.

In September, more than a month after President Joe Biden left the race, Trump was talking as if he was still running against him and not Harris. Following the departure of Biden, Trump is the oldest nominee of a major party in US history and he would become the oldest president ever if he wins and finishes another term, at the end of which he would be 82 years old.

Over the course of the nine years that Trump has spent on the political scene, his speeches have grown bleaker, longer, and more focused on the past, according to a review by The New York Times. The outlet found that Trump’s speeches now last on average 82 minutes compared to 45 minutes in 2016.

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-age-speeches-rambling-mental-fitness-b2625103.html

---

COMMENT

82 minutes for a Trump speech?  That’s almost an HOUR AND A HALF = 90 minutes.  Can you really tolerate listening to this man rant in a disconnected, rambling speech filled with lies and bullshit?

If you can listen to his rants and still vote for him, you clearly are as mentally degraded as is Trump.

 

And none of the fools with him know enough to point out his error.

MAGA Republicans are now lying about the federal response to Hurricane Helene in much the same way they lied about Haitian migrants bringing chaos and disease to Springfield, Ohio. Both disinformation efforts are flat-out lies, and both are designed to demonize immigrants. Immigration was the issue Trump was so eager to run on that he demanded Republican lawmakers reject the strong border bill a bipartisan group of lawmakers had hammered out. 

The federal response to Hurricane Helene has drawn bipartisan praise, with Republican governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina thanking Biden by name for what McMaster called a “superb” response. 

But on Sunday, September 29, two days after the hurricane hit, the right-wing organization started by anti-immigrant Trump loyalist Stephen Miller posted: “Billions for Ukraine. Billions for illegal aliens. And what for the Americans? Reprogram every single dollar that FEMA has dedicated to support illegal aliens to go towards Americans who are facing unprecedented devastation!”

Yesterday, in Saginaw, Michigan, Trump echoed Miller, claiming that the Biden administration is botching the hurricane response because it has spent all the money appropriated for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on “illegal immigrants.” “They spent it all on illegal migrants.… They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank, so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them,” he said. Today, he claimed that “a billion dollars was stolen from FEMA to use it for illegal migrants, many of whom are criminals, to come into our country.”

Early this morning, X owner Elon Musk posted to his more than 200 million followers: “Yes, they are literally using YOUR tax dollars to import voters and disenfranchise you! It is happening right in front of your eyes. And FEMA used up its budget ferrying illegals into the country instead of saving American lives. Treason.” On Wednesday, Dana Mattioli, Joe Palazzolo, and Khadeeja Safdar of the Wall Street Journal broke the story that Musk has been financing groups with ties to Miller since 2022.

But of course, it is NOT happening in front of anyone’s eyes.

On Wednesday, Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in which FEMA is housed, told reporters that FEMA’s disaster relief fund is adequately funded for current needs. But, he warned, “extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity,” and we are not yet out of hurricane season. If another emergency hits, FEMA’s disaster relief fund will be stretched thin.

Congress also appropriated money for a different fund, the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), which is part of Customs and Border Protection but is administered by FEMA. Established under the Trump administration in 2019, SSP gives grants to states and local governments to provide shelter, food, and transportation to undocumented immigrants. After Trump’s accusation, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement: “These claims are completely false. As Secretary Mayorkas said, FEMA has the necessary resources to meet the immediate needs associated with Hurricane Helene and other disasters. The Shelter and Services Program (SSP) is a completely separate, appropriated grant program that was authorized and funded by Congress and is not associated in any way with FEMA’s disaster-related authorities or funding streams.”

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post did not leave the story there. “Trump has a habit of assuming other politicians act in the same way as he would,” Kessler wrote. So he looked into why Trump would have accused Biden “of raiding the FEMA disaster fund to handle undocumented migrants. It turns out that’s because he did this.”

In the middle of hurricane season in 2019, Kessler explains, Trump took $155 million from the FEMA disaster fund and redirected it to pay for detention space and temporary hearing locations for immigrants seeking asylum. “No, Biden didn’t take FEMA relief money to use on migrants,” the article title reads, “but Trump did.”

As in Springfield, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are begging MAGAs to stop the disinformation, which is keeping people from accessing the help they need and gumming up relief efforts as workers and local and state governments, as well as FEMA, have to waste time combating lies. Scammers and political extremists are making things worse by spreading AI-generated images and claiming that the federal government is ignoring the people and emergencies the images depict.

MAGA Republicans launched another major disinformation campaign today when the Bureau of Labor Statistics released another blockbuster jobs report. It showed that the country added about 254,000 jobs in September, far higher than the 140,000 jobs economists expected. It also revised the job numbers for July and August upward. The unemployment rate dropped from 4.2% in August to 4.1%, and wages have outpaced inflation.

Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, wrote that the jobs report “cements my view that the economy is about as good as it gets. The economy is creating lots of jobs across many industries, consistent with robust labor force growth, and thus low and stable unemployment. The economy is at full-employment, no more and no less. Wage growth is strong, and given big productivity gains, it is consistent with low and stable inflation. One couldn’t paint a prettier picture of the job market and broader economy.”

Yet MAGA Republicans deny that the economy is strong. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) openly called the jobs report fake. And when a reporter asked Trump, “Jobs are up, the stock market hit that all-time high. Do you acknowledge that the economy is improving?” he answered: “No it’s not.”

But, apparently stung, this afternoon Trump posted on his social media site what appeared to be an announcement. After an emoji of a flashing red light, a headline read, “New: Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has endorsed Trump for President.” A representative for Dimon instantly denied such an endorsement, saying it is false. According to a spokesperson for JP Morgan, Dimon has neither contributed money nor endorsed Trump, or anyone else, in the 2024 presidential race. But Trump has not taken the post down. 

Hugo Lowell of The Guardian notes that Trump has admired Dimon for a long time and likely craves his support. Trump has been unable to attract major endorsements, while celebrities throw their influence behind Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz almost daily. Yesterday, musician Bruce Springsteen endorsed Harris. Today, businessman and former Los Angeles Lakers basketball player Earvin “Magic” Johnson Jr. endorsed her.

The firehose of lies is designed to make it impossible for voters to figure out the truth. The technique is designed so that eventually voters give up trying to engage, conclude everyone is lying, throw up their hands, and stop voting. Holding on to facts combats the effects of the storm of lies.

Finally, tonight, the X account of Trump’s team and the Republican National Committee—now run by the Trump family and loyalists—showed a clip of Biden unexpectedly entering the White House briefing room today, joking with reporters, and saying, “Welcome to the swimming pool.” Referring to “Biden (or whatever’s left of him),” the post suggested his “swimming pool” reference was a sign of mental incapacity.

In fact, the briefing room was indeed originally a swimming pool.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt added the pool to the White House in 1933 after he found swimming helped to keep him in shape after his 1921 bout with polio. Presidents Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy (who had a mural by Bernard Lamotte installed around it), and Lyndon B. Johnson used the pool frequently. Richard Nixon did not. In 1970, Nixon had the pool covered and the space converted into the White House Press Room.

Nixon ordered the change made in such a way that it could be easily undone in case he got pushback for covering up FDR’s pool, but his successor, Gerald Ford, who was an avid swimmer, largely ended the conversation when he added a new outdoor pool to the White House complex in 1975.

Biden’s reference to the press room as a swimming pool was a historical joke rather than a sign of mental incapacity. This lie deserves the same scrutiny as the other whoppers from today, though, because as Glenn Kessler accurately observed, Trump’s common pattern is projection.

On Wednesday, Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed a redacted version of Jack Smith’s immunity motion. Now we have a clear view of what Smith believes is still on the table after the Supreme Court’s decision. The short version: just about everything. Smith acknowledges that the Court took Trump’s interactions with DOJ officials out of the case, but he argues that everything else is either private conduct that is fair game or official conduct that he can overcome the presumption of immunity for by demonstrating prosecution won’t harm the presidency—as if it’s not Trump who’s harming the presidency. Smith is going to make the courts tell him no, if they are of a mind to. His position until then is that he is prosecuting Trump on all of the charges in the superseding indictment.

Judge Chutkan issued a written decision denying Trump’s request to keep the filing under seal. Trump did not seek a timely stay, so we now have access to the redacted version of the brief the government submitted for the public record.

Donald Trump might be able to make the federal prosecutions against him go away if he is reelected. But the taint, the stench (to appropriate Justice Sotomayor’s choice of words during oral argument in Dobbs), is something democracy wouldn’t survive. Jack Smith’s layout of the evidence against Donald Trump in Section One of the brief underlines that. Smith is focused on law, not politics, but past is prologue, and his brief, although he certainly didn’t intend it, is a warning and a call to action for American voters.

Smith goes straight to it in his opening paragraph. He’s not intimidated by Donald Trump or by the Supreme Court’s decision, which some people suggested might end his prosecution: “Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted—a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role.” Smith says that although the Supreme Court has ruled Trump’s efforts to corrupt the Justice Department in his quest to overthrow the 2020 election are covered by immunity, the rest of the allegations against Trump are fair game. He uses the 165 pages in his brief to establish that point.

We now know to a moral certainty why Donald Trump didn’t want the public to see this brief. It’s because he’s guilty. Not just in the court of public opinion. Smith has the goods on him. Unlike the January 6 committee, Smith had subpoena power and the ability to execute search warrants and use other investigative techniques, and he put them to good purpose. He also appears to have witness testimony that is new, for instance, details about Trump’s conversations with Mike Pence.

There are four sections in the brief:

• Section One (P.3): An overview of the factual evidence the government expects to present at trial. This is the core of the motion, for those who want to read through Smith’s evidence against Trump.
• Section Two (P.85): An explanation of the legal principles that govern determining what immunity covers. Also, a layout of the two-step process the court should use to determine whether each category of conduct the government expects to prove gets immunity. First, the court should determine if conduct was “was official or unofficial by analyzing the relevant ‘content, form, and context,’” to decide if Trump was acting as candidate or president. Actions of candidate Trump, Smith writes (echoing how we discussed this at Civil Discourse many months ago) don’t get immunity. Where Trump was acting in his official capacity as president, there is a presumption of immunity that can be overcome if the prosecution shows that “applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”
• Section Three (P.88): Smith applies the legal principles from Section Two to Trump’s conduct and “establishes that nothing the Government intends to present to the jury is protected by presidential immunity.” Smith says that while the conversations between Trump and Pence qualify as official, he overcomes the presumption of immunity, and none of the other conduct Trump is charged with is official.
• Section Four (P.164): The government asks the court to enter an order that specifies that (1) Trump isn’t entitled to immunity for the conduct set forth in Section One, (2) that Trump can be forced to stand trial on the charges, and (3) that the prosecution can put on evidence of the conduct described in Section One.

This is the road map for the decisions Judge Chutkan will have to make before this case moves forward. And of course, it won’t go straight to trial. Trump will be able to appeal her decisions about what isn’t protected by immunity, and the government can appeal any decisions she makes about what is. Ultimately, the Supreme Court may weigh in, either by hearing the case or by refusing to hear it and affirming the Court of Appeals decision reviewing Judge Chutkan’s rulings, before the case can be set for trial. That could mean the Supreme Court adding the case to its docket for this term—if the Court of Appeals gets it to them that quickly—ordering briefing and oral argument, and not rendering a decision until as late as June or July. Look for the government to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case directly without waiting on the Court of Appeals. The government made that motion last time and the Supreme Court waved it off, but at this point, there is really no rationale to let the Court of Appeals try to speculate about what the Supreme Court meant in its immunity decision in Trump.

For so many years, people have hesitated to call out Trump in plain language. Smith does not. He starts the layout of his evidence like this, saying Trump “resorted to crimes to stay in office.”

Smith also identifies, by number rather than by name, a number of co-conspirators (CC) and persons (P) involved in Trump’s crimes.

Although their identities are redacted, there are a number of lists circulating on the internet where people try to identify them based on the content they are involved in. For instance, CC1 is widely believed to be Rudy Giuliani.

Smith previews the buckets of conduct discussed in the next 82 pages of the brief, signaling to the court that he will establish later in his brief that none of this conduct is covered by presidential immunity:

• Trump’s formation of the three conspiracies charged in the indictment leading up to and immediately following the 2020 presidential election
• Trump’s knowledge that his loss was not due to fraud, despite his persistent claims it was, and
• Trump’s “increasingly desperate efforts” to disrupt the electoral process with claims of election fraud that he knew were lies

The first section of the brief is Smith’s layout of his evidence. That portion has received a lot of public attention. It’s a recitation of Trump’s crimes, and it’s worth reading; it’s written in a way that’s accessible for non-lawyers. But the legal issue that is the reason this pleading was filed is to determine what parts of Trump’s conduct Chutkan, and ultimately higher courts, will let Smith use. So we’ll focus on the portions of the brief where Smith lays out the standard for determining immunity and go back and revisit the facts when we have the opportunity. Smith’s position here is that Trump doesn’t get immunity for any of the conduct charged in the superseding indictment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Trump immunity appeal is one that, as we discussed at the time, doesn’t make sense. It purports to give a president the ability to do acts we clearly don’t want a president to be able to do in a democracy—the whole hypo about directing SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival with impunity. That’s where the Supreme Court landed, and of course, by the same token, they landed there only for Trump. He’s the only one in the current political landscape who would contemplate doing something like that (although the Court may well embolden future wrongdoer-presidents); the Court could only render a decision like this because it had confidence in Joe Biden’s integrity and good faith.

It was a supremely bad decision. Now, Jack Smith is giving them the opportunity to flesh out their decision in a way that undoes some of the damage. He offers them the chance to draw the clean and obvious line between acts of a candidate—acts that are not the official business of the presidency, and so not within the scope of immunity—and official acts of a president. He is also giving them the chance to clarify what they meant when they wrote that the presumption of immunity for “non-core” official acts could be overcome “by demonstrating that ‘applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Smith says that while the conduct charged involving Trump’s pressure campaign to get Pence to refuse to certify Biden’s Electoral College win is official, it falls within this category, and prosecuting Trump for it will not damage the executive branch, so Trump is not entitled to immunity.

In other words, when this case returns to them, the Supreme Court can either let the case proceed to trial, or they can rule that a president can solicit his vice president to join his criminal scheme to overturn an election and that somehow, prosecuting him for doing that would damage democracy. It would be an “Alice in Wonderland” look at the law, the notion that somehow, it’s prosecuting Trump, not letting him get away with it, that harms the presidency. Jack Smith is betting that even this Supreme Court, and especially now with the public’s eye firmly on it, won’t go there.

Smith just wants a chance to try his case. The American public deserves that, too. We cannot go back to a time when a president, rather than give up power after losing an election, would be on the side of chaos and violence at the expense of democracy.

In the debate Tuesday night, JD Vance tried to wish the insurrection away. His charm offensive was a thinly disguised effort to wipe the slate clean and pretend January 6, 2021, never happened. Jack Smith is getting the last word in that debate, though. He says it did happen, it did matter, and that Donald Trump, presidential immunity or no, can be prosecuted for it. JD Vance’s non-answer in the debate was a concession that he’s all in on Donald Trump’s past and present ambition to be president again, whether the American voters want him to be or not. Vance, who has said he would not have certified the vote count for President Biden in 2020, is on board for a redux.

Tuesday night, a reporter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, asked Trump if he trusted the electoral process this time around, Trump answered: “I’ll let you know in about 33 days.” In other words, the process only works if he wins.

 

Let’s get on with the election so Trump can face justice in a courtroom.

In 2022 J.D. Vance (MAGAt) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D) were running for Ohio’s open Senate seat — Vance won by 1.2 percentage points.  Here’s an exchange during the debate when Ryan called out Vance.

JD Vance called out to his face! who is this person giving it to JD straight??

“You were calling Trump ‘America’s Hitler’ And then you kissed his ass. [JD Vance.. “that’s not true”] It is true. And then you kissed his ass and then he endorsed you. And you said he was the greatest president of all time. Mitch McConnell gave you $40 million dollars to prop up your campaign. Peter Thiel gave you $55 million dollars. That’s 55 million dollars! What do you think they want for that? They want your loyalty. And you prove that you’ll kiss their asses too. “

https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1fukrix/jd_vance_once_called_trump_americas_hitler/