Michela A. C., and the governor of Ohio says he is still going to vote for Trump because he has said that he would vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. I can’t even come up with a comment about this.
The other problems with Trumps claim that have been overlooked:
1. They started coming to Springfield in 2017-2018, when Trump was in office.
2. Neither Harris (or anyone) "sent" them there, they went because they are legal immigrants, free to move around the country, and they went where they had friends/family/job opportunities, just like anybody else.
3. This is not an "open border" thing; TPP status (which a large number of Haitian immigrants has) is due to the disasters in Haiti, and under Trumps administration, when he was saber rattling about withdrawing TPP status, other Republicans protested and said that Haitians should stay with protected status because of the continuing situation in Haiti.
This is not a "democrat vs republican" thing. It's about people who are legally here, who moved where they could get jobs and make a life. YES, that has created strains on housing, schools, the medical community, etc... just like ANY influx of people does. And the Federal Gov't should help ease those problems when they arise, like they do in disasters.
When are you going to get the point that in MAGALAND objective facts and logic don’t matter? The only truths are what issue from Trump and Vance’s lips no matter how false they are. We are living in 1984.
After 9 years of the tRump era, I am exhausted. I just cannot fathom how his base can process and continue the daily lies. To want tRump in the Oval Office is to want the end of us as a nation. Because it won’t stop with the immigrants - they want to be rid of anyone who doesn’t fit their idea of ‘pure’ American. The Blacks, the Gays, liberals, apparently childless women, Latins can all start lining up for the box cars. Never have we been this close to Armageddon and it will be the ‘Real’ Americans ridding the world of the fake Americans. I’ll fight but, I am so tired of this.
Wearing you down and firing up the base is exactly what it's all about. Be grateful you aren't the sort of person who enjoys this sort of ugliness. They are taking Trump's debate failure and weaponizing it to what they see as great effect, which is why they aren't letting up. It's right out of the Roy Kohn playbook: induce outrage and follow it up with an even bigger cause for outrage so that the last one gets forgotten; reload and repeat. Don't give any more clicks to the corporate media over these outrages than you absolutely have to, and don't give them reason to think they are winning. You're better than they are. Your fatigue proves it.
Once again Team Big Picture, a thorough, informative back story on a swirling political convo… this was so helpful to fill in gaps I had in the story… thank you!!! 🙏🏻
How nice you commented! I realized after posting I should have singled you out too, as it was your byline! Thank you for your kindness about that oversight… 🙏🏻
Couldn't/Shouldn't the AG at least file a 'cease and desist' order? I think it is more than justified, considering the financial resourses already in play, it would be a starting place to stem the flow and would set the ground work for next steps if the weirdos chose to disregard. They are the party of lawlessness and disorder. Vote 💙
IMO, the city of Springfield, OH; the school district; the state of OH should be suing the (putin)Trump/Vance campaign to reclaim the costs incurred in responding to the violent threats. And frankly, the ACLU should be lending legal support to the Haitian community.
And Aidan Clark's parents should consider suing the campaign and the media outlets that continue to exploit a distorted account of their child's death.
‘Incitement of violence' is an exemption from First Amendment free speech protections. 33 bomb threats should meet the threshold, I would hope, calling up their Guard supports the perception of real threat.
It is a very tricky line. The incitement of violence exemption requires that there either be a specific intent to incite violence or that the probability of inciting violence is so high that it is virtually guaranteed. This is actually line that Trump has been very careful to walk for most of his life (even before he entered into politics) and is one of the key arguments about why he shouldn't be held responsible for the attacks on the Capital on January 6th. While he was clearly broadcasting his intents, and most likely had a general idea of what he wanted his supporters to do, his speech was such that there could have been other interpretations, and there was no guarantee that it would motivate people to actually break the law, since that would itself be an unlawful choice. So extremely tricky. Even more complicated by the fact that this was political speech, which is generally given even more protection than other types of speech.
But you don't even have to look at January 6th for a similar example, Trump started doing things like this long before he was even elected. Back in 2016 he would say things like "It would be too bad if anything happened to "x"" clearly signaling a desire for a supporter to engage in violence, without actually telling them to do so or using language which, by itself, can be interpreted as any sort of instruction. Or he would say things like "if anyone does X, I will pay their legal fees". Basically indicating that he would approve of an illegal action to such a degree that he would provide legal cover (in essence a "payment" for the illegal action), but which didn't directly say "You should do X".
I don't remember which specific thing this was in regard to....I think it may have been the Congressional investigations into Ukraine or the Russian election interference, but there was one time where Eric Trump slipped up and actually said what most of us already knew. The question was something along the lines of "Did Donald Trump order you to do X or, are you aware of him ordering anyone to do X.". And Eric responded, that it hadn't been done directly but it was clear that that was what was wanted, because when his father said he would like to see something, everyone understood that he expected that thing to be done.
Basically, Trump is a wanna-be mobster. He talks exactly like he imagines mobsters do....the way they do in movies. If you watch carefully, the guy in charge almost never actually "orders a hit". Rather, they say things like "I think an unfortunate accident may occur to X sometime this week.", and they don't actually come out with a threat, they say things like "I would hate to see something happen to your beautiful wife.". Everyone knows what it means. There is absolutely no mystery. BUT, technically no illegal action was ordered and no actual threat was made. Therefore, if the FBI (or whatever government authority) is listening in, the defense can plausibly claim that there was no illegal action that took place.
This is how Trump has always been (I grew up in NY and my family knew many people in NYC real estate). He never quite makes a promise you can hold him to - instead he keeps very vague language that is subject to interpretation. He never quite tells someone to act in a certain way, but anyone who knows him knows that if you don't act in that way there will be he** to pay.
So, the question is whether Trump (or Vance) should have reasonably been able to anticipate that violence would occur as a result of their statements. Since it was political speech and they didn't outright say "call in bomb threats", or "storm the town", or even "someone should go and do something", it would be very tough to prove. It is easier now that this has become such a pattern, because Trump should know that whenever he has engaged in such directed rhetoric his fans respond, usually with violence (or at least with threats of violence). But because it is so hard to draw a line between when his supporters react in a truly unexpectedly violent way and a way that should be reasonably expected, it is pretty much impossible to draw a list of up of what speech is and is not okay for him to use.
When that is impossible to do with any degree of quantifiable accuracy, the argument is "well if a judge can't do it, then how is Trump supposed to reasonably know where the boundary is, and if he doesn't know where the boundary is, then this risks him feeling like he has to refrain from speaking at all for fear of punishment.....this chills free political discourse and thus is unconstitutional".
There is a lot more to this (such as discussions of prior restraint of speech, restraint on one person speaking a certain way but not on another, etc....), but the point is that the argument is far more complex than it should be. That is why the courts would almost definitely not allow such a claim to be prosecuted unless it actually went as far as to order actual violence or illegal activity. The fact that he is a Presidential candidate and it is so close to the election, makes it even less likely.
I don't think Trump actually understands the law behind this, but I think he understands enough to know that as long as he is intentionally vague, and only talks about what he would like to see, or wish could happen, or how upsetting things are and how enraged everyone will be, he is relatively safe. The courts may be willing to take a chance if the statements he make are almost precisely what he has said before which HAS resulted in violence, but as long as there is some difference, no one is going to take the risk.
This is ESPECIALLY true since we know that many (if not the majority) of Supreme Court Justices are so beholden to him that, if it became necessary, they would probably be willing to completely ignore the entire history of free speech doctrine in the country just in order to help Trump. It is bad enough that Trump can get away with speech that anyone with common sense knows is going to end up causing violence, but can you imagine what the country would be like if the Supreme Court decided to completely do away with the few types of speech which are not protected (hate speech, defamation, incitement, etc...)?
If you think it is bad now, you don't want to imagine what it would be like if people could literally say anything about anyone, anytime, anywhere, and couldn't be punished. Just imagine a world where a racist can call in a report a crime about a minority and outright lie without any fear of repercussion. Where a person can yell "bomb" in a crowded arena and cause a stampede for the door, because he/she thinks it would be a great joke to post to Tik-Tok. A world where an abuser can openly threaten his/her victim right in front of the police, and the police couldn't do a thing about it. A world where a hate group could post online to recruit people to engage in criminal activity, and not face an ounce of responsibility. Get the idea?
If you think it can't happen, consider this. Just months ago, Trump's Justices decided to declare that a President is so far above the law that he can literally use the military or FBI to go to his political opponents' homes and make them "disappear", take money out of the treasury and pay off his own bills, and use American assets overseas to seize land in other countries for his own use, and because each of these things would involve using a power of the presidency as a tool, not only can the President not be prosecuted, but the information can not even be obtained in any sort of investigation or used to prosecute those who helped him in his actions. They literally just gave the guy who holds the nuclear codes and full force of the American military a license to use them in any way he sees fit, and never have to worry about answering for those actions.
Very thoughtful, Thank you! In 'Disloyal' Michael mentions how tfg talks in "code", which is why I got so much delight when his testimony about trump paying to rig the "most influential" poll by paying for bots was allowed in at the NY '16 election interference trial because of something his attorney said. I wish we could launch a zero confidence vote against SCOTUS, their purpose is to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it based on their personal religious beliefs and political gain.
I never could bring myself to read "Disloyal". I know it is petty, but I grew up in NY, in an area of Long Island where many people were involved in NYC real estate in one way or another, so Trump's games were very well known, and most people were familiar with how Cohen would act as Trump's tools to literally ruin lives.
I know he has done soul searching, and that he has done as much as anyone can to expose and criticize Trump, but a piece of me just cannot bring myself to read his book or watch his shows or do anything that shows support. I think it is great that he has done some reflection and repenting, but in my mind, until he starts taking a good portion of his earnings and using them to try to help some of the people whose lives his blind loyalty to Trump all but destroyed, I can't help but feeling that he jumped off a sinking ship and is again just doing what is best for him.
All that aside, your statement about SCOTUS is so interesting for me. I was once a big firm litigation attorney, and now tutor pre-law and law students on a number of topics, including Constitutional law. One of the things I specialize in is preparing people to sit for the bar exam. Approximately 18% of the questions on the multiple choice section of the bar exam deal with Constitutional law.
When I sat for the bar back in 2003, the Constitutional law material that I studies was almost the same material that had been in place for the prior 20+ years. There were some slight modifications, but the "big picture" type issues that the bar focuses on were pretty much fixed. Constitutional law just is one of those areas that, while absolutely fundamental, doesn't change much over time, and only very rarely by leaps and bounds. When I began teaching for the bar exam in 2008, I did have to do a brief refresher on Constitutional law, but it still was pretty much the same. The same thing for the first 5-6 years that I taught.
However, ever since then, the number of changes to Constitutional Law have become so numerous, and coming more and more rapidly in such fundamental ways, that I feel like very little of what I learned in law school and was tested on for the bar exam is still untouched. Some questions that were such an important part of the bar exam that you KNEW they would be tested, suddenly had to disappear because what had been fixed Constitutional Law for decades suddenly was not merely changed, but entirely unclear.
One thing I often do is that I look at cases coming through the lower courts that may eventually wind up at the Supreme Court. As I am looking at the years ahead, specifically looking at what cases may be coming up, and how the current conservative majority would be politically aligned on the matters, I am predicting that we will see changes to questions that have been considered well settled for most of our country's history.
I won't go into a huge essay on what issues, since I don't know your level of interest in such things, but I will say that while most of the country sees Dobbs as a blow to Abortion rights, as an attorney and teacher of Constitutional Law, my concern goes far beyond that, because an overturning of Roe v. Wade essentially took away the entire source of an "implied" Constitutional right to privacy, which has been used as a basis for a huge variety of important rights that we have assumed were protected, and now are left in limbo. There are other such "implied" rights in the Constitution that have been established via Supreme Court precedent, but are not actually written anywhere. There are some court cases coming down the pipeline that would, if the Supreme Court wished, provide a tool for SCOTUS to take away some of those rights.
For example, most people assume that Americans have a right to travel between states, because for over two centuries the interstate commerce clause has been held to have implied this right. However, there are some very conservative cases coming up which could allow the far right to achieve key objectives, but only if the right to such travel were no longer considered a Constitutional right. That right to travel, has been the source of so many of the things in our lives that we don't even think about it. However, it can very easily be ripped away in ways that could devastate our economy and hurt individuals.
Your statement on the proper role of the Supreme Court is extremely insightful. But, the follow up is that the more you understand of the law, and in particular of Constitutional law, the more frightening their actions really are. The worst part is, short of impeachments (which are not going to happen absent a blue wave that is far beyond what anyone, even the most optimistic Democrat, is hoping), some actual restructuring of the court (for example, imposing term limits or adding new seats), or some weird series of resignations/deaths from the relatively young Conservative Justices, there really is nothing that can be done to stop the problem in the short term. If there are enough Democratic administrations then over time they will overcome the votes, but in the short term, even with Trump out of office, the amount of damage that SCOTUS can do is almost unlimited.
Thank you, for your dedication and (scary) insight on something that I had just been looking into last night, the pipeline of BS that seems to flow right through Texas, the 5th Circuit and is disproportionately heard by this SCOTUS bench. Toppling of our protective agencies, removing guardrails, ruling on hypothetical (or flat out made up) cases, they have soiled the bench and the stench will linger, as will the toxic and deadly aftermath of the rulings from their past few sessions. I only read Disloyal (bought used) because Michael had said he wrote it as an apology to his wife/family, they were victims of his addiction to power, and misplaced loyalty to a lunatic. I also read Filthy Rich in ‘17, so knew about Epstein/Maxwell and tRump prior to ‘19 arrest and his ‘I wish her well’ statement. One doesn't get mentioned 69 times in related documents for just being neighbors. He is named 312 times in Project 2025 but ‘knows nothing about it’, his reign of terror cannot end soon enough for me. Vote 💙
I think the OH AG is part of the problem. He echoed Dumpy's rhetoric a few days ago. I dearly hope Gov. DeVine ripped him a new one, since it only lasted for a day.
Another Republican not doing his job because of favor to a con man. We saw it in both impeachments, we saw it in Texas with Paxton too…it is a pattern of abuse…Vote 💙
Pure evil. They never apologize. They never admit they were wrong. I they have no morals. The hurt they cause is heartbreaking. Absolutely heartbreaking.
And in fact, Vance knows that to stay on Trump's good side, the only option is to double down, and he is playing the role to a tee. There is never an apology, never an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or that a lie has been told. That is the only way for Trump and now it is the way of the GOP.
If those spreading the initial false story thought about it (and clearly they haven't) it would have to have been a pretty big cat (tiger-sized?) to be hanging from a tree and "carved up." No critical thinking skills here, folks.
I don't get it. Yesterday one of my friends posted a very old interview with trump where I guess he said something about being president one day. IDK, I didn't watch it but I think that was the gist. I know as soon as Harris was appointed nominee she stuck her head in the sand about all trump is doing and vowed she would never vote for Harris. Anyway the first comment from one of her friends was "Oh and it's wonderful he reached his aspirations! And so many don't think about how politicians do not have a good head for business. He has excelled at both!" Seriously? He's bankrupted how many businesses? He doesn't pay contractors. I wanted to make some nasty comments but I have given up the fight on that one, I just hid the post so I never have to see it again.
exactly.....and that beneath the key munters propagating this....the followers allegiance and blindness......that is a quietly gutting aspect of all of this. They are out there, in our communities, families and amidst our friends.............and when we are like w h a t? How can peeps believe that lie....they are like YEAH...preach it tRump................disillusionment right there........but we can't let that be the truth can we.
This is the definitive article on how these assholes operate. It should be published in every supermarket tabloid so that the actual truth can be spread to the non-digital.
This is disturbing and horrifying on several levels. Headlines shouId be screaming “it’s lies!!”. Not only is THAT not happening, I also read that no republican people in Congress/senate are speaking out against what they are doing. So all Republican leaders across the country are ok with where we’re headed ? (I know a few have spoken against it, but it shouId be 100% of them.)
Trash is what you get with these losers. Remember what you were taught in school when programming. Garbage in, Garbage out. They want to treat Americans like trash, vote blue!
Not only does my heart break for the Haitian community but the words from the mother who lost her son took me over the edge.
This has to stop now before anyone is killed.
How many proud boys are there now? What the f are they proud of?
I just donated to the Haitian Community Center in Springfield. It feels like the only thing I can do. https://www.haitiansupportcenterspringfield.org/
Thanks for this article Jay.
Agree, this must stop. Thanks for the kind words.
Oops didn’t see that Jay didn’t write this. Thank you Todd!
Thank you
I donated and shared to facebook
Arrested development is nothing to be proud about.
What's worse is that the republican Ohio reps in congress and senate are mostly silent.
Michela A. C., and the governor of Ohio says he is still going to vote for Trump because he has said that he would vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. I can’t even come up with a comment about this.
😡
Then DeWine is complicit in terrorizing a community he’s supposed to represent.
The truth, meanwhile, is still putting its boots on.....
Speaking of traveling around the world, our local news said that the bomb threats may have originated from overseas.
If true, thanks Putin, you did it in 2016 and you're doing it today.
What a surprise.
Putin will only be happy when the Russian flag is flying over the US Capitol.
Wasn’t that the plot of “Amerika?” with Robert Urich, Sam Neill, and Christine Lahti?
The other problems with Trumps claim that have been overlooked:
1. They started coming to Springfield in 2017-2018, when Trump was in office.
2. Neither Harris (or anyone) "sent" them there, they went because they are legal immigrants, free to move around the country, and they went where they had friends/family/job opportunities, just like anybody else.
3. This is not an "open border" thing; TPP status (which a large number of Haitian immigrants has) is due to the disasters in Haiti, and under Trumps administration, when he was saber rattling about withdrawing TPP status, other Republicans protested and said that Haitians should stay with protected status because of the continuing situation in Haiti.
This is not a "democrat vs republican" thing. It's about people who are legally here, who moved where they could get jobs and make a life. YES, that has created strains on housing, schools, the medical community, etc... just like ANY influx of people does. And the Federal Gov't should help ease those problems when they arise, like they do in disasters.
And it's maybe 15,000 - including children. Not 20K, not dumped, and ALL LEGAL.
When are you going to get the point that in MAGALAND objective facts and logic don’t matter? The only truths are what issue from Trump and Vance’s lips no matter how false they are. We are living in 1984.
After 9 years of the tRump era, I am exhausted. I just cannot fathom how his base can process and continue the daily lies. To want tRump in the Oval Office is to want the end of us as a nation. Because it won’t stop with the immigrants - they want to be rid of anyone who doesn’t fit their idea of ‘pure’ American. The Blacks, the Gays, liberals, apparently childless women, Latins can all start lining up for the box cars. Never have we been this close to Armageddon and it will be the ‘Real’ Americans ridding the world of the fake Americans. I’ll fight but, I am so tired of this.
Wearing you down and firing up the base is exactly what it's all about. Be grateful you aren't the sort of person who enjoys this sort of ugliness. They are taking Trump's debate failure and weaponizing it to what they see as great effect, which is why they aren't letting up. It's right out of the Roy Kohn playbook: induce outrage and follow it up with an even bigger cause for outrage so that the last one gets forgotten; reload and repeat. Don't give any more clicks to the corporate media over these outrages than you absolutely have to, and don't give them reason to think they are winning. You're better than they are. Your fatigue proves it.
ditto.....well said
Once again Team Big Picture, a thorough, informative back story on a swirling political convo… this was so helpful to fill in gaps I had in the story… thank you!!! 🙏🏻
Thanks, Nancie! So glad you found it helpful!
How nice you commented! I realized after posting I should have singled you out too, as it was your byline! Thank you for your kindness about that oversight… 🙏🏻
Couldn't/Shouldn't the AG at least file a 'cease and desist' order? I think it is more than justified, considering the financial resourses already in play, it would be a starting place to stem the flow and would set the ground work for next steps if the weirdos chose to disregard. They are the party of lawlessness and disorder. Vote 💙
IMO, the city of Springfield, OH; the school district; the state of OH should be suing the (putin)Trump/Vance campaign to reclaim the costs incurred in responding to the violent threats. And frankly, the ACLU should be lending legal support to the Haitian community.
And Aidan Clark's parents should consider suing the campaign and the media outlets that continue to exploit a distorted account of their child's death.
Excellent points! 💙
Apparently they’re not doing anything illegal? Something wrong right there.
‘Incitement of violence' is an exemption from First Amendment free speech protections. 33 bomb threats should meet the threshold, I would hope, calling up their Guard supports the perception of real threat.
It is a very tricky line. The incitement of violence exemption requires that there either be a specific intent to incite violence or that the probability of inciting violence is so high that it is virtually guaranteed. This is actually line that Trump has been very careful to walk for most of his life (even before he entered into politics) and is one of the key arguments about why he shouldn't be held responsible for the attacks on the Capital on January 6th. While he was clearly broadcasting his intents, and most likely had a general idea of what he wanted his supporters to do, his speech was such that there could have been other interpretations, and there was no guarantee that it would motivate people to actually break the law, since that would itself be an unlawful choice. So extremely tricky. Even more complicated by the fact that this was political speech, which is generally given even more protection than other types of speech.
But you don't even have to look at January 6th for a similar example, Trump started doing things like this long before he was even elected. Back in 2016 he would say things like "It would be too bad if anything happened to "x"" clearly signaling a desire for a supporter to engage in violence, without actually telling them to do so or using language which, by itself, can be interpreted as any sort of instruction. Or he would say things like "if anyone does X, I will pay their legal fees". Basically indicating that he would approve of an illegal action to such a degree that he would provide legal cover (in essence a "payment" for the illegal action), but which didn't directly say "You should do X".
I don't remember which specific thing this was in regard to....I think it may have been the Congressional investigations into Ukraine or the Russian election interference, but there was one time where Eric Trump slipped up and actually said what most of us already knew. The question was something along the lines of "Did Donald Trump order you to do X or, are you aware of him ordering anyone to do X.". And Eric responded, that it hadn't been done directly but it was clear that that was what was wanted, because when his father said he would like to see something, everyone understood that he expected that thing to be done.
Basically, Trump is a wanna-be mobster. He talks exactly like he imagines mobsters do....the way they do in movies. If you watch carefully, the guy in charge almost never actually "orders a hit". Rather, they say things like "I think an unfortunate accident may occur to X sometime this week.", and they don't actually come out with a threat, they say things like "I would hate to see something happen to your beautiful wife.". Everyone knows what it means. There is absolutely no mystery. BUT, technically no illegal action was ordered and no actual threat was made. Therefore, if the FBI (or whatever government authority) is listening in, the defense can plausibly claim that there was no illegal action that took place.
This is how Trump has always been (I grew up in NY and my family knew many people in NYC real estate). He never quite makes a promise you can hold him to - instead he keeps very vague language that is subject to interpretation. He never quite tells someone to act in a certain way, but anyone who knows him knows that if you don't act in that way there will be he** to pay.
So, the question is whether Trump (or Vance) should have reasonably been able to anticipate that violence would occur as a result of their statements. Since it was political speech and they didn't outright say "call in bomb threats", or "storm the town", or even "someone should go and do something", it would be very tough to prove. It is easier now that this has become such a pattern, because Trump should know that whenever he has engaged in such directed rhetoric his fans respond, usually with violence (or at least with threats of violence). But because it is so hard to draw a line between when his supporters react in a truly unexpectedly violent way and a way that should be reasonably expected, it is pretty much impossible to draw a list of up of what speech is and is not okay for him to use.
When that is impossible to do with any degree of quantifiable accuracy, the argument is "well if a judge can't do it, then how is Trump supposed to reasonably know where the boundary is, and if he doesn't know where the boundary is, then this risks him feeling like he has to refrain from speaking at all for fear of punishment.....this chills free political discourse and thus is unconstitutional".
There is a lot more to this (such as discussions of prior restraint of speech, restraint on one person speaking a certain way but not on another, etc....), but the point is that the argument is far more complex than it should be. That is why the courts would almost definitely not allow such a claim to be prosecuted unless it actually went as far as to order actual violence or illegal activity. The fact that he is a Presidential candidate and it is so close to the election, makes it even less likely.
I don't think Trump actually understands the law behind this, but I think he understands enough to know that as long as he is intentionally vague, and only talks about what he would like to see, or wish could happen, or how upsetting things are and how enraged everyone will be, he is relatively safe. The courts may be willing to take a chance if the statements he make are almost precisely what he has said before which HAS resulted in violence, but as long as there is some difference, no one is going to take the risk.
This is ESPECIALLY true since we know that many (if not the majority) of Supreme Court Justices are so beholden to him that, if it became necessary, they would probably be willing to completely ignore the entire history of free speech doctrine in the country just in order to help Trump. It is bad enough that Trump can get away with speech that anyone with common sense knows is going to end up causing violence, but can you imagine what the country would be like if the Supreme Court decided to completely do away with the few types of speech which are not protected (hate speech, defamation, incitement, etc...)?
If you think it is bad now, you don't want to imagine what it would be like if people could literally say anything about anyone, anytime, anywhere, and couldn't be punished. Just imagine a world where a racist can call in a report a crime about a minority and outright lie without any fear of repercussion. Where a person can yell "bomb" in a crowded arena and cause a stampede for the door, because he/she thinks it would be a great joke to post to Tik-Tok. A world where an abuser can openly threaten his/her victim right in front of the police, and the police couldn't do a thing about it. A world where a hate group could post online to recruit people to engage in criminal activity, and not face an ounce of responsibility. Get the idea?
If you think it can't happen, consider this. Just months ago, Trump's Justices decided to declare that a President is so far above the law that he can literally use the military or FBI to go to his political opponents' homes and make them "disappear", take money out of the treasury and pay off his own bills, and use American assets overseas to seize land in other countries for his own use, and because each of these things would involve using a power of the presidency as a tool, not only can the President not be prosecuted, but the information can not even be obtained in any sort of investigation or used to prosecute those who helped him in his actions. They literally just gave the guy who holds the nuclear codes and full force of the American military a license to use them in any way he sees fit, and never have to worry about answering for those actions.
Very thoughtful, Thank you! In 'Disloyal' Michael mentions how tfg talks in "code", which is why I got so much delight when his testimony about trump paying to rig the "most influential" poll by paying for bots was allowed in at the NY '16 election interference trial because of something his attorney said. I wish we could launch a zero confidence vote against SCOTUS, their purpose is to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it based on their personal religious beliefs and political gain.
I never could bring myself to read "Disloyal". I know it is petty, but I grew up in NY, in an area of Long Island where many people were involved in NYC real estate in one way or another, so Trump's games were very well known, and most people were familiar with how Cohen would act as Trump's tools to literally ruin lives.
I know he has done soul searching, and that he has done as much as anyone can to expose and criticize Trump, but a piece of me just cannot bring myself to read his book or watch his shows or do anything that shows support. I think it is great that he has done some reflection and repenting, but in my mind, until he starts taking a good portion of his earnings and using them to try to help some of the people whose lives his blind loyalty to Trump all but destroyed, I can't help but feeling that he jumped off a sinking ship and is again just doing what is best for him.
All that aside, your statement about SCOTUS is so interesting for me. I was once a big firm litigation attorney, and now tutor pre-law and law students on a number of topics, including Constitutional law. One of the things I specialize in is preparing people to sit for the bar exam. Approximately 18% of the questions on the multiple choice section of the bar exam deal with Constitutional law.
When I sat for the bar back in 2003, the Constitutional law material that I studies was almost the same material that had been in place for the prior 20+ years. There were some slight modifications, but the "big picture" type issues that the bar focuses on were pretty much fixed. Constitutional law just is one of those areas that, while absolutely fundamental, doesn't change much over time, and only very rarely by leaps and bounds. When I began teaching for the bar exam in 2008, I did have to do a brief refresher on Constitutional law, but it still was pretty much the same. The same thing for the first 5-6 years that I taught.
However, ever since then, the number of changes to Constitutional Law have become so numerous, and coming more and more rapidly in such fundamental ways, that I feel like very little of what I learned in law school and was tested on for the bar exam is still untouched. Some questions that were such an important part of the bar exam that you KNEW they would be tested, suddenly had to disappear because what had been fixed Constitutional Law for decades suddenly was not merely changed, but entirely unclear.
One thing I often do is that I look at cases coming through the lower courts that may eventually wind up at the Supreme Court. As I am looking at the years ahead, specifically looking at what cases may be coming up, and how the current conservative majority would be politically aligned on the matters, I am predicting that we will see changes to questions that have been considered well settled for most of our country's history.
I won't go into a huge essay on what issues, since I don't know your level of interest in such things, but I will say that while most of the country sees Dobbs as a blow to Abortion rights, as an attorney and teacher of Constitutional Law, my concern goes far beyond that, because an overturning of Roe v. Wade essentially took away the entire source of an "implied" Constitutional right to privacy, which has been used as a basis for a huge variety of important rights that we have assumed were protected, and now are left in limbo. There are other such "implied" rights in the Constitution that have been established via Supreme Court precedent, but are not actually written anywhere. There are some court cases coming down the pipeline that would, if the Supreme Court wished, provide a tool for SCOTUS to take away some of those rights.
For example, most people assume that Americans have a right to travel between states, because for over two centuries the interstate commerce clause has been held to have implied this right. However, there are some very conservative cases coming up which could allow the far right to achieve key objectives, but only if the right to such travel were no longer considered a Constitutional right. That right to travel, has been the source of so many of the things in our lives that we don't even think about it. However, it can very easily be ripped away in ways that could devastate our economy and hurt individuals.
Your statement on the proper role of the Supreme Court is extremely insightful. But, the follow up is that the more you understand of the law, and in particular of Constitutional law, the more frightening their actions really are. The worst part is, short of impeachments (which are not going to happen absent a blue wave that is far beyond what anyone, even the most optimistic Democrat, is hoping), some actual restructuring of the court (for example, imposing term limits or adding new seats), or some weird series of resignations/deaths from the relatively young Conservative Justices, there really is nothing that can be done to stop the problem in the short term. If there are enough Democratic administrations then over time they will overcome the votes, but in the short term, even with Trump out of office, the amount of damage that SCOTUS can do is almost unlimited.
Thank you, for your dedication and (scary) insight on something that I had just been looking into last night, the pipeline of BS that seems to flow right through Texas, the 5th Circuit and is disproportionately heard by this SCOTUS bench. Toppling of our protective agencies, removing guardrails, ruling on hypothetical (or flat out made up) cases, they have soiled the bench and the stench will linger, as will the toxic and deadly aftermath of the rulings from their past few sessions. I only read Disloyal (bought used) because Michael had said he wrote it as an apology to his wife/family, they were victims of his addiction to power, and misplaced loyalty to a lunatic. I also read Filthy Rich in ‘17, so knew about Epstein/Maxwell and tRump prior to ‘19 arrest and his ‘I wish her well’ statement. One doesn't get mentioned 69 times in related documents for just being neighbors. He is named 312 times in Project 2025 but ‘knows nothing about it’, his reign of terror cannot end soon enough for me. Vote 💙
I think the OH AG is part of the problem. He echoed Dumpy's rhetoric a few days ago. I dearly hope Gov. DeVine ripped him a new one, since it only lasted for a day.
Another Republican not doing his job because of favor to a con man. We saw it in both impeachments, we saw it in Texas with Paxton too…it is a pattern of abuse…Vote 💙
Pure evil. They never apologize. They never admit they were wrong. I they have no morals. The hurt they cause is heartbreaking. Absolutely heartbreaking.
And in fact, Vance knows that to stay on Trump's good side, the only option is to double down, and he is playing the role to a tee. There is never an apology, never an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or that a lie has been told. That is the only way for Trump and now it is the way of the GOP.
If those spreading the initial false story thought about it (and clearly they haven't) it would have to have been a pretty big cat (tiger-sized?) to be hanging from a tree and "carved up." No critical thinking skills here, folks.
My thought exactly.
Why do so many just want to nod and agree with such unbelievable bullshit ??? 🤬🤬🤬
I don't get it. Yesterday one of my friends posted a very old interview with trump where I guess he said something about being president one day. IDK, I didn't watch it but I think that was the gist. I know as soon as Harris was appointed nominee she stuck her head in the sand about all trump is doing and vowed she would never vote for Harris. Anyway the first comment from one of her friends was "Oh and it's wonderful he reached his aspirations! And so many don't think about how politicians do not have a good head for business. He has excelled at both!" Seriously? He's bankrupted how many businesses? He doesn't pay contractors. I wanted to make some nasty comments but I have given up the fight on that one, I just hid the post so I never have to see it again.
exactly.....and that beneath the key munters propagating this....the followers allegiance and blindness......that is a quietly gutting aspect of all of this. They are out there, in our communities, families and amidst our friends.............and when we are like w h a t? How can peeps believe that lie....they are like YEAH...preach it tRump................disillusionment right there........but we can't let that be the truth can we.
I can’t share it. The lies and the misogyny of the miscreants running for the highest office in the land are domestic terrorists.
This is the definitive article on how these assholes operate. It should be published in every supermarket tabloid so that the actual truth can be spread to the non-digital.
What a great read! Thank you. If only the right people would read this..............but the truth like the pony express may not get thru.
This is disturbing and horrifying on several levels. Headlines shouId be screaming “it’s lies!!”. Not only is THAT not happening, I also read that no republican people in Congress/senate are speaking out against what they are doing. So all Republican leaders across the country are ok with where we’re headed ? (I know a few have spoken against it, but it shouId be 100% of them.)
Which is exactly why, for the first time in my life, l will not, cannot vote for a single Republican until every last one of them denounces Trump**.
Same
Thank you. I hope there are more people out there like you who believe in truth, fairness and honesty.
Yes it should be 100% of them and they should have spoken early and often and loudly. Cowards one and all.
Complicit, aka guilty.
Please vote them out.
Just posted but Fakebook rejected it as spam. Bots abound. Will try again later.
Trash is what you get with these losers. Remember what you were taught in school when programming. Garbage in, Garbage out. They want to treat Americans like trash, vote blue!
Now that JD Couchman Vance has admitted the story is false, his true threat is to all the single cat ladies.