I think it's fair to say that that there is a presumption that there is either a political or personal motive in 99.9999% of every act or comment made by Trump.
L.D.,I think you made a mistake by attributing that 0.00001 % of every act or comment made by the scumbag president is fair and reasonable. I would round up the 99.9999% to get a more accurate reality. Thanks for your attention to this matter. 😜
That presumption of personal motive began with his decision to run for president. It was never about service to this country. It was always about personal enrichment and avoidance of prosecution.
The gerrymander fight is on. There is a new playbook. The old rules have been struck down by the Supreme Court. We need to change the gears here as fast as possible for deadly preemptive strikes. Newsom has moved out on this already. Who is next? Hochul. Where are you? Ptitzker. What are you doing?
With the laws in place in New York, there is virtually no way redistributing can happen by 2026.
Of course, Hochul could do other things… she could endorse Zohran Mamdani, she could speak out much more loudly against the daily kidnappings of immigrants in her state…
Further Democratic gerrymandering is pretty much out of the question. As I understand it, the Democrats have already squeezed every possible Congressional seat they can. It would probably resemble sucking on a dry lemon peel. Maybe Prizker can perform a miracle.
L.D. Michaels: What makes it confusing is that anything anyone says or does has a political and personal dimension. If so, then the points are (1) what are those dimensions; (2) do they align with, or are they at cross-purposes with, what is the right and good thing to say and do under the circumstances (for instance, following one's Oath of Office in an authentic way [in "good faith,"] or not; and (3) if different, which is going forward--a good faith effort, regardless, or just some nefarious personal or political identity-oriented fears and desires hidden behind a gaslight of sorts or some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.
Catherine, the Democrats have to realize they are in a knife fight. The Republicans, lead by Trump, are ruthless! They are not looking for a fair or equal fight. At this point, they will lie, cheat or steal in order to retain power. I hate the idea that the Democrats have to "break the rules" to remain equal. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in.
Charles: I hate it too. My thought, however, has led me to the further question--first, California's set policy (about gerrymandering) is an example of rightly reaching for the authentic ideal--I remain proud of that.
However, the question becomes whether reaching out to the ideal is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic--good in its own circumstances, but not so good if it means ignoring the real-politic that faces us with the current GOP/MAGA/Trump situation. How does one save the ship? and the ideal? I think probably by keeping completely, aware, open, and diligently expressive of a real/life return to the ideal when this whole thing blows over. Do what one must to save the ship (I think this is what Newsome is doing). How much of one's own soul one must sacrifice to do so is the other elephant-question in the room. And we should always be aware that everyone is tip-toeing around a turn to violence here--which I think is not good for anyone.
(Also, look how this situation resembles dealing with Putin/Ukraine, or with those who are shooting civilians and journalists in GAZA? We are in a really weird time.)
Catherine, the other problem is the conservative majority on the SC. They have ruled that gerrymandering for political purposes is OK. But, it is not OK if the gerrymander is for racial purposes. This is a specious argument. Political gerrymandering of course involves changing voting districts that mostly move boundaries involving people of color. But, that's the law of the land as decreed by the Supremes. The three progressive Justices can only write well thought out and well written dissents, which may sway the thinking of a *future* Court.
Charles: Yes, I always thought SC was like: "Me thinks you parse too much." I have to say that I am surprised at how long the old-block of racist/sexist, etc., and (so-called) MAGA has held on.
I would call him a toddler who is throwing temper tantrums every waking hour. And all his ass-kissers show loyalty to him by doing the same, see Bondi, Noem, etc.
Presumption of regularity no longer applies to the Supreme Court. The majority on the Court are just Trump's "yes" men and woman. Chief Justice Roberts' legacy is already sealed. The "immunity" decision means he will be forever linked with the 19th century's Taney (Dred Scott decision) as the worst chief justices on US history.
unfortunately, I think they are more than yes men and woman....they are ,and have been, actively participating in turning america into the crap pile it is headed for
No such presumption ever did (legitimately) apply to SCOTUS. The "presumption of regularity" has a very limited legitimate scope.
At the top of this piece, Jen quoted Elias saying “Courts assume that the president and his administration act in good faith, that their actions are lawful, their statements truthful and their motivations honest.” The word "courts" is crucial. Presumptions make sense only in the context of litigation and only because the presumption is merely a corollary of a particular legal burden. A presumption favoring one party always must be paired with a burden imposed on the other party.
The classic example (which everyone knows) is in criminal law. The government must prove every material fact establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The corollary is that the defendant enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Federal law (Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally) provides another example: "the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption."
Justice Kagan's dissent in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP also explained how presumptions must be paired with a particular burden.
Courts and Justices should look far enough down the road to see that with a total takeover of authoritarianism with a fascist leader, their positions are no longer necessary. They need to look out for their own jobs too, but apparently haven't thought that far ahead.
Apparently not. You'd think none of them knew that judges in Hitler's Germany were forced to wear little swastikas on their robes, and all courts of appeal were abolished.
And, as demonstrated in "Judgement at Nuremberg", many of those judges were found guilty of war crimes and sent to prison (the film was based on true events), although most of them had their sentences commuted after some time
Unfortunately, no. Look at China, Hungary, and other authoritarian countries where the Supreme Court, or equivalent, is completely under the state’s control. So they still have jobs, salaries, healthcare and all the trappings of privilege. Its packed by loyalists and they add the appearance of legitimacy to anything the dictator wants. We should’ve seen it coming with McConnell’s extraordinary actions denying Obama the right to appoint a SC judge towards the end of his term and then reversing and allowing trump to do the same 4 years later. Why was it so important to break the norm as Mitch did? And here we are.
Is the question mark following 'coming over the hill ahead' appropriate? If what is happening doesn't stop, that is exactly what we are and will be seeing.
How many different ways can we talk about what Trump is up to. My old Latin teacher used his favorite phrase more times than I can count. “Repetitio est. mater estudiorum”. Repetition is the mother of students. Those of us who’ve been listening know it all too well. Those of us who refuse to listen likely never will.
Trump will go on until something other than everything we’ve tried so far stops him, if anything. He’s committed beyond any semblance of reason, desperate to ignore any legal or Constitutional restraints and to avoid any legal or Constitutional sanctions. He knows full well what awaits him outside the protection of the Oval Office where the Supreme Court’s get out of jail free card no longer matters. That moment is the loss of a Republican majority in the House when a third set of impeachment indictments will certainly be brewing, and he knows he cannot necessarily count on a Republican Senate to let him off the hook a third time.
True. But the forces of authoritarianism are too entrenched at this point. If the cult rebels at the death of their leader, the National Guard are already in place as a military arm of the State to quash any resistance and Vance, Bondi, Hesgeth, etc., are still here.
If this all came to pass do you think the current resistance and MAGA would agree to a truce to get rid of Vance and the rest?
Hummingburd3: I think Vance is in a self-destructive death spiral, as are the rest of the drunkards, dog killers, and moral degenerates who presently work for Trump. It's just a matter of time and how much destruction they can inspire before they're gone.
I do think that Jefferson's idea of not taking away democratic power from the people, but rather educating the citizenry, holds; though it might sound naive, and though it's a long-term idea, . . . if we ever do get the chance again . . . . I think that presently, however, we are in a watershed of extremely bad educational forces from the last century. So: out with the knives? Give power to someone who knows when to walk away? (Like Solon in pre-Christian Greek times?)
In the meantime, I'm still trying to figure out (1) why these oligarchs who have more money than you can shake a stick at, don't undergo a moral conversion and invest in cleaning up the plastics and garbage all over the world (what a legacy that would be?) (2) why oil companies' CEOs and investors are not in jail over their control of ESSENTIAL environmental laws; and (3) why the Supreme Court has succumbed to MAGA Brain Disease.
Possibly, but from all indications to this point, he doesn't have the cowing or bulling effects on Congress. He is also not demented, which would be a plus.
Trump was just the means of the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society and all those who continue to channel the ghosts of the southern Democrats to grab power. It doesn’t matter at this point if he ceases to exist. I believe that if he dies before he can be ultimately disgraced, stripped of power and jailed he will be morphed by the groups mentioned above into a martyr. Still useful by invoking his name and what he would have wanted to happen. We are too far down the roads of authoritarianism, christian nationalism and oligarchy to focus on trump. That time has come and gone, probably in 2020, when we should have prosecuted him and everyone else involved and focused on strengthening the guardrails of democracy. Maybe it was too late even then.
You make some good points, and assuming we do go beyond Project 2025 and the various Trump influencers, we should see the weak spots in the 'rails of democracy' and shore them up so this situation can never repeat.
The cult will memorialize Trump no matter what, and if he dies ahead of his end of term, they'll martyr him anyway. Some people still treat Reagan that way.
He's looking and behaving far worse. The stress is more intense, due to resistance. Maybe his feeble brain thought that we would just fold. He talks about Heaven. Talks about Kim Jong Un when Lea Jay My-ung is sitting there. He just keeps lashing out. Revenge."Get me 💰🤑💸💲🪙". Roof visits. He might go catatonic. But it won't stop the rot his presence has injected into our country. Long roads ahead.
I don't think he's one to accept the reality of hiw own death, but if he thought he might go down in history as the first president to be impeached three times (and if he's impeached again it means the Dems have won the mid-terms and it's all but certain he'll be impeached and very possibly convicted at last), he might give up the ghost rather than accept that.
My latin teacher had this above his door, "Omnes agricolae non sunt in agris". I suppose he didn't have much respect for farmers, but you get the point.
When Trump & his Republican lackeys undermine the rule of law & the economy with policies “designed for maximum damage”… Public opinion is against this madness. The MAGA propaganda network will only get more frantic & dishonest the more public opposition hardens. #Resist & #Vote Blue.
Parading military units around tourist sites in DC or other Blue cities is an enormously expensive abuse of power. 8 of 10 states with the highest homicide rates are led by Republicans. 13 of the top 20 cities in homicide rate have Republican governors.
I'm proud of our governor for standing up for the people of Chicago and Illinois. His challenge as to why military intervention in red states' cities where crime is higher still was noteworthy.
His litany of the president's lies was brilliant. We need a dozen more governors as capable, as straight-talking, as firm as Gov. Pritzker is. They need to meet and agree on a response to "his" next moves.
You've got it. A governors' coalition would present a type of unity that could wield power and influence. A great idea. So far, we have Newsom, Pritzker and Shapiro who have been the most vocal. This must grow.
I live in PA and I'm not at all sure of Shapiro. He was heavy-handed with pro-Palestinian protestors at PA university campuses after the Gaza war began. And he has criticized Zohran Mamdani for not speaking out against antiseminitism, by which Shapiro meant the use of the phrase "globalizing the Intifada." Shapiro does not seem to acknowledge the origins of the use of that phrase and distorts the meaning and intent of those words and the history of the intifada. The first Intifada was a response to Israel's increasing expansion into Gaza and the West Bank and its unlawful expropriation of Palestinian lands. That's when that phrase was first used by Palestinians. So I think Shapiro has a lot of work to do before he becomes a viable figure of unity.
We need to try to avoid looking at one single issue (both in election choices and individuals' characters) as all that defines them. Try not to overlook the good in a quest for the perfect, which no one is or will be.
One cannot "presume regularity" if the person or entity at issue is continually demonstrating that he/she/it is acting in a highly irregular manner. In fact, when dealing with the Trump Mob Regime, one must, rather, *presume IRregularity," bad faith, illegality, and corruption.
But why haven't the judges been questioning the "presumption of regularity" all along? Why hasn't there been more push-back in the courts against Trump's flagrant misuse of power? Why haven't there been investigations into the legitimacy of these alleged claims of corruption against the Trump critics which supposedly legitimize things like the FBI raids of John Bolton's residence and workplace? Is there no one left who hasn't been bought off, threatened, or cowed by the Trump regime?
"As legal authority and founder of Democracy Docket Marc Elias wrote in May, “Courts assume that the president and his administration act in good faith"
Well, we all know what happens when we 'assume', and the courts have done it. When will they come to the realization that the “presumption of regularity" went out the window on 20 January 2025? Nothing that has been done in this administration could be determined to be regular or normal, from the quasi-legal formation of DOGE to everything that has followed including the violation of a federal law (Posse Comitatus Act) that impresses active and now armed military upon our civilian population. The Supine Court in granting the "acting in good faith" assumption has turned against the people and justice by aiding and abetting Trump.
I'm waiting for one SC justice to engage in straight talk the next time this president dares to verbalize any legal argument. One national leader to call him out for his exaggerations, his lies. One Republican member of Congress to do the same. One major newspaper or news show--other than Rachel Maddow--to cease sanitizing and validating this president, this presidency.
I have days where I just can’t take another round of the BS, where I’m fed up with literally everyone around me doing NOTHING to oppose the BS - today’s one of those days - and then there’s the Contrarian and all its supporters. Thank you all
So perfectly on point with every fact! Absolutely there should be documentation of alleged facts before a judge. The dictator in chief has risen but he shall fall faster than a rock and sooner rather than later.
I thank god that for the most part, in this country, there has been a stable element of regularity among its governors. That this should have ceased to be so puts every single one of us at risk. Stop, for one moment, and consider the implications, which the characteristics of the person of Donald Trump, who has via chicanery of all sorts, claimed the office of the presidency as his own. He is vile and corrupt, rapacious, criminal, racists, sexist, paranoid, psychopathic, and now it appears highly likely, demented and incompetent. Perhaps this is just the wake-up call we needed to illustrate the need for reform. Job One is to get rid of him and his entire cohort of horribles. Job Two, to form means to revise and strengthen the laws that protect us from the lawlessness of such characters and see that they are not only enacted, but enforced.
I think it's fair to say that that there is a presumption that there is either a political or personal motive in 99.9999% of every act or comment made by Trump.
L.D.,I think you made a mistake by attributing that 0.00001 % of every act or comment made by the scumbag president is fair and reasonable. I would round up the 99.9999% to get a more accurate reality. Thanks for your attention to this matter. 😜
Your point is well taken Ricardo. Thanks for clarifying!
That presumption of personal motive began with his decision to run for president. It was never about service to this country. It was always about personal enrichment and avoidance of prosecution.
Agreed. Every decision that Trump makes is preceded by the following question to himself: "What's in it for me?"
The gerrymander fight is on. There is a new playbook. The old rules have been struck down by the Supreme Court. We need to change the gears here as fast as possible for deadly preemptive strikes. Newsom has moved out on this already. Who is next? Hochul. Where are you? Ptitzker. What are you doing?
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/gerrymander-fight?r=3m1bs
With the laws in place in New York, there is virtually no way redistributing can happen by 2026.
Of course, Hochul could do other things… she could endorse Zohran Mamdani, she could speak out much more loudly against the daily kidnappings of immigrants in her state…
Further Democratic gerrymandering is pretty much out of the question. As I understand it, the Democrats have already squeezed every possible Congressional seat they can. It would probably resemble sucking on a dry lemon peel. Maybe Prizker can perform a miracle.
L.D. Michaels: What makes it confusing is that anything anyone says or does has a political and personal dimension. If so, then the points are (1) what are those dimensions; (2) do they align with, or are they at cross-purposes with, what is the right and good thing to say and do under the circumstances (for instance, following one's Oath of Office in an authentic way [in "good faith,"] or not; and (3) if different, which is going forward--a good faith effort, regardless, or just some nefarious personal or political identity-oriented fears and desires hidden behind a gaslight of sorts or some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.
Catherine, the Democrats have to realize they are in a knife fight. The Republicans, lead by Trump, are ruthless! They are not looking for a fair or equal fight. At this point, they will lie, cheat or steal in order to retain power. I hate the idea that the Democrats have to "break the rules" to remain equal. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in.
Charles: I hate it too. My thought, however, has led me to the further question--first, California's set policy (about gerrymandering) is an example of rightly reaching for the authentic ideal--I remain proud of that.
However, the question becomes whether reaching out to the ideal is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic--good in its own circumstances, but not so good if it means ignoring the real-politic that faces us with the current GOP/MAGA/Trump situation. How does one save the ship? and the ideal? I think probably by keeping completely, aware, open, and diligently expressive of a real/life return to the ideal when this whole thing blows over. Do what one must to save the ship (I think this is what Newsome is doing). How much of one's own soul one must sacrifice to do so is the other elephant-question in the room. And we should always be aware that everyone is tip-toeing around a turn to violence here--which I think is not good for anyone.
(Also, look how this situation resembles dealing with Putin/Ukraine, or with those who are shooting civilians and journalists in GAZA? We are in a really weird time.)
It is time the Dems bring a gun to the knife fight, because as you say, that's the world we live in.
Catherine, the other problem is the conservative majority on the SC. They have ruled that gerrymandering for political purposes is OK. But, it is not OK if the gerrymander is for racial purposes. This is a specious argument. Political gerrymandering of course involves changing voting districts that mostly move boundaries involving people of color. But, that's the law of the land as decreed by the Supremes. The three progressive Justices can only write well thought out and well written dissents, which may sway the thinking of a *future* Court.
Charles: Yes, I always thought SC was like: "Me thinks you parse too much." I have to say that I am surprised at how long the old-block of racist/sexist, etc., and (so-called) MAGA has held on.
This is an excellent summary of the Bully-In-Chief’s dictatorial acts.
I would call him a toddler who is throwing temper tantrums every waking hour. And all his ass-kissers show loyalty to him by doing the same, see Bondi, Noem, etc.
Presumption of regularity no longer applies to the Supreme Court. The majority on the Court are just Trump's "yes" men and woman. Chief Justice Roberts' legacy is already sealed. The "immunity" decision means he will be forever linked with the 19th century's Taney (Dred Scott decision) as the worst chief justices on US history.
SCROTUM 6
unfortunately, I think they are more than yes men and woman....they are ,and have been, actively participating in turning america into the crap pile it is headed for
Quite true.
No such presumption ever did (legitimately) apply to SCOTUS. The "presumption of regularity" has a very limited legitimate scope.
At the top of this piece, Jen quoted Elias saying “Courts assume that the president and his administration act in good faith, that their actions are lawful, their statements truthful and their motivations honest.” The word "courts" is crucial. Presumptions make sense only in the context of litigation and only because the presumption is merely a corollary of a particular legal burden. A presumption favoring one party always must be paired with a burden imposed on the other party.
The classic example (which everyone knows) is in criminal law. The government must prove every material fact establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The corollary is that the defendant enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Federal law (Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally) provides another example: "the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption."
Justice Kagan's dissent in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP also explained how presumptions must be paired with a particular burden.
With these wretched people, courts should adopt a "presumption of bullshit" approach, until proven otherwise.
Courts and Justices should look far enough down the road to see that with a total takeover of authoritarianism with a fascist leader, their positions are no longer necessary. They need to look out for their own jobs too, but apparently haven't thought that far ahead.
Apparently not. You'd think none of them knew that judges in Hitler's Germany were forced to wear little swastikas on their robes, and all courts of appeal were abolished.
And, as demonstrated in "Judgement at Nuremberg", many of those judges were found guilty of war crimes and sent to prison (the film was based on true events), although most of them had their sentences commuted after some time
An excellent movie, BTW.
Unfortunately, no. Look at China, Hungary, and other authoritarian countries where the Supreme Court, or equivalent, is completely under the state’s control. So they still have jobs, salaries, healthcare and all the trappings of privilege. Its packed by loyalists and they add the appearance of legitimacy to anything the dictator wants. We should’ve seen it coming with McConnell’s extraordinary actions denying Obama the right to appoint a SC judge towards the end of his term and then reversing and allowing trump to do the same 4 years later. Why was it so important to break the norm as Mitch did? And here we are.
Cast an eye at our Supreme Court! Presently a Trump loyalist place and sympathetic to his wishes and whims? Immunity?
WE the People are certainly seeing an “authoritarian state” coming over the hill ahead! We are in this mess together!
Is the question mark following 'coming over the hill ahead' appropriate? If what is happening doesn't stop, that is exactly what we are and will be seeing.
THUGOCRACY!!!!!! Yesss!!!
How many different ways can we talk about what Trump is up to. My old Latin teacher used his favorite phrase more times than I can count. “Repetitio est. mater estudiorum”. Repetition is the mother of students. Those of us who’ve been listening know it all too well. Those of us who refuse to listen likely never will.
Trump will go on until something other than everything we’ve tried so far stops him, if anything. He’s committed beyond any semblance of reason, desperate to ignore any legal or Constitutional restraints and to avoid any legal or Constitutional sanctions. He knows full well what awaits him outside the protection of the Oval Office where the Supreme Court’s get out of jail free card no longer matters. That moment is the loss of a Republican majority in the House when a third set of impeachment indictments will certainly be brewing, and he knows he cannot necessarily count on a Republican Senate to let him off the hook a third time.
I suspect that the only thing that can save Trump (and us) would be his most timely passing.
Will that be enough? Vance I think
Is just as bad, if not worse, given his intense support of white Christian nationalism
Absolutely as bad or worse, but he doesn't have the MAGA crowd to back him up.
That's the thing about cults--like tribes, if the leader-god dies, everyone tends to scatter.
True. But the forces of authoritarianism are too entrenched at this point. If the cult rebels at the death of their leader, the National Guard are already in place as a military arm of the State to quash any resistance and Vance, Bondi, Hesgeth, etc., are still here.
If this all came to pass do you think the current resistance and MAGA would agree to a truce to get rid of Vance and the rest?
Hummingburd3: I think Vance is in a self-destructive death spiral, as are the rest of the drunkards, dog killers, and moral degenerates who presently work for Trump. It's just a matter of time and how much destruction they can inspire before they're gone.
I do think that Jefferson's idea of not taking away democratic power from the people, but rather educating the citizenry, holds; though it might sound naive, and though it's a long-term idea, . . . if we ever do get the chance again . . . . I think that presently, however, we are in a watershed of extremely bad educational forces from the last century. So: out with the knives? Give power to someone who knows when to walk away? (Like Solon in pre-Christian Greek times?)
In the meantime, I'm still trying to figure out (1) why these oligarchs who have more money than you can shake a stick at, don't undergo a moral conversion and invest in cleaning up the plastics and garbage all over the world (what a legacy that would be?) (2) why oil companies' CEOs and investors are not in jail over their control of ESSENTIAL environmental laws; and (3) why the Supreme Court has succumbed to MAGA Brain Disease.
Possibly, but from all indications to this point, he doesn't have the cowing or bulling effects on Congress. He is also not demented, which would be a plus.
One can hope, good point!
Trump was just the means of the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society and all those who continue to channel the ghosts of the southern Democrats to grab power. It doesn’t matter at this point if he ceases to exist. I believe that if he dies before he can be ultimately disgraced, stripped of power and jailed he will be morphed by the groups mentioned above into a martyr. Still useful by invoking his name and what he would have wanted to happen. We are too far down the roads of authoritarianism, christian nationalism and oligarchy to focus on trump. That time has come and gone, probably in 2020, when we should have prosecuted him and everyone else involved and focused on strengthening the guardrails of democracy. Maybe it was too late even then.
You make some good points, and assuming we do go beyond Project 2025 and the various Trump influencers, we should see the weak spots in the 'rails of democracy' and shore them up so this situation can never repeat.
The cult will memorialize Trump no matter what, and if he dies ahead of his end of term, they'll martyr him anyway. Some people still treat Reagan that way.
From your keyboard to The Lord's eyes! But I suspect that when all is said and done, Don the Con will get away with all of it.
He will die. No punishment for the rapes, defraud, deaths due to ICE, rack and ruin of the Government systems, etcetera etcetera...
You're probably right-- given his health habits and his beer belly, he'll probably keel over dead before he's ever convicted of anything.
But then again, if as the saying goes, "the good die young" that SOB will probably live to the age of 150!
He's been given 6 to 8 months by some experts. Hope springs eternal
I've heard that, but then again I also heard it 5 or 6 years ago, yet he's still chugging along.
He's looking and behaving far worse. The stress is more intense, due to resistance. Maybe his feeble brain thought that we would just fold. He talks about Heaven. Talks about Kim Jong Un when Lea Jay My-ung is sitting there. He just keeps lashing out. Revenge."Get me 💰🤑💸💲🪙". Roof visits. He might go catatonic. But it won't stop the rot his presence has injected into our country. Long roads ahead.
I don't think he's one to accept the reality of hiw own death, but if he thought he might go down in history as the first president to be impeached three times (and if he's impeached again it means the Dems have won the mid-terms and it's all but certain he'll be impeached and very possibly convicted at last), he might give up the ghost rather than accept that.
My latin teacher had this above his door, "Omnes agricolae non sunt in agris". I suppose he didn't have much respect for farmers, but you get the point.
The Latin phrase "Omnes agricolae non sunt in agris" translates to "Not all farmers are in the fields". I may sound clueless, but what is the point?
When Trump & his Republican lackeys undermine the rule of law & the economy with policies “designed for maximum damage”… Public opinion is against this madness. The MAGA propaganda network will only get more frantic & dishonest the more public opposition hardens. #Resist & #Vote Blue.
Parading military units around tourist sites in DC or other Blue cities is an enormously expensive abuse of power. 8 of 10 states with the highest homicide rates are led by Republicans. 13 of the top 20 cities in homicide rate have Republican governors.
Gov. Pritzker: “In case there was any doubt as to the motivation behind Trump’s military occupations, take note. https://newrepublic.com/post/199570/illinois-governor-jb-pritzker-rages-trump-fascist-takeover-chicago
I'm proud of our governor for standing up for the people of Chicago and Illinois. His challenge as to why military intervention in red states' cities where crime is higher still was noteworthy.
His litany of the president's lies was brilliant. We need a dozen more governors as capable, as straight-talking, as firm as Gov. Pritzker is. They need to meet and agree on a response to "his" next moves.
You've got it. A governors' coalition would present a type of unity that could wield power and influence. A great idea. So far, we have Newsom, Pritzker and Shapiro who have been the most vocal. This must grow.
I live in PA and I'm not at all sure of Shapiro. He was heavy-handed with pro-Palestinian protestors at PA university campuses after the Gaza war began. And he has criticized Zohran Mamdani for not speaking out against antiseminitism, by which Shapiro meant the use of the phrase "globalizing the Intifada." Shapiro does not seem to acknowledge the origins of the use of that phrase and distorts the meaning and intent of those words and the history of the intifada. The first Intifada was a response to Israel's increasing expansion into Gaza and the West Bank and its unlawful expropriation of Palestinian lands. That's when that phrase was first used by Palestinians. So I think Shapiro has a lot of work to do before he becomes a viable figure of unity.
We need to try to avoid looking at one single issue (both in election choices and individuals' characters) as all that defines them. Try not to overlook the good in a quest for the perfect, which no one is or will be.
Good comment and you're right. But I would like to see Shapiro open his eyes to the Gaza genocide --and to the merits of Mamdani.
One cannot "presume regularity" if the person or entity at issue is continually demonstrating that he/she/it is acting in a highly irregular manner. In fact, when dealing with the Trump Mob Regime, one must, rather, *presume IRregularity," bad faith, illegality, and corruption.
But why haven't the judges been questioning the "presumption of regularity" all along? Why hasn't there been more push-back in the courts against Trump's flagrant misuse of power? Why haven't there been investigations into the legitimacy of these alleged claims of corruption against the Trump critics which supposedly legitimize things like the FBI raids of John Bolton's residence and workplace? Is there no one left who hasn't been bought off, threatened, or cowed by the Trump regime?
"As legal authority and founder of Democracy Docket Marc Elias wrote in May, “Courts assume that the president and his administration act in good faith"
Well, we all know what happens when we 'assume', and the courts have done it. When will they come to the realization that the “presumption of regularity" went out the window on 20 January 2025? Nothing that has been done in this administration could be determined to be regular or normal, from the quasi-legal formation of DOGE to everything that has followed including the violation of a federal law (Posse Comitatus Act) that impresses active and now armed military upon our civilian population. The Supine Court in granting the "acting in good faith" assumption has turned against the people and justice by aiding and abetting Trump.
I'm waiting for one SC justice to engage in straight talk the next time this president dares to verbalize any legal argument. One national leader to call him out for his exaggerations, his lies. One Republican member of Congress to do the same. One major newspaper or news show--other than Rachel Maddow--to cease sanitizing and validating this president, this presidency.
What does it take to get a court to insist on a rational and factual basis for the use of the term "emergency" as a justification?
So apparently Ratliff provided “overseas intel” about Bolton. Hmm. Any chance it’s russian BS that only trumpets would believe?
See you in September in DC.
https://removalcoalition.org/
By that date Daniel, you might have to add Chicago.
Don't think so.
Congress returns. There are many issues we can use to convince a few Congressional Republicans. Brian Fitzpatrick is a case study.
Pressure them directly, their donors, families, social friends etc. Picket. Sit in.
Proportionally 4 x more crime in MAGA Mike's home town than in DC. Memphis is the most crimeridden city in the US. Jackson, Mississippi! Bessemer, AL!
Interview the National Guardsmen. Odds are more crime at home.
I have days where I just can’t take another round of the BS, where I’m fed up with literally everyone around me doing NOTHING to oppose the BS - today’s one of those days - and then there’s the Contrarian and all its supporters. Thank you all
So perfectly on point with every fact! Absolutely there should be documentation of alleged facts before a judge. The dictator in chief has risen but he shall fall faster than a rock and sooner rather than later.
I thank god that for the most part, in this country, there has been a stable element of regularity among its governors. That this should have ceased to be so puts every single one of us at risk. Stop, for one moment, and consider the implications, which the characteristics of the person of Donald Trump, who has via chicanery of all sorts, claimed the office of the presidency as his own. He is vile and corrupt, rapacious, criminal, racists, sexist, paranoid, psychopathic, and now it appears highly likely, demented and incompetent. Perhaps this is just the wake-up call we needed to illustrate the need for reform. Job One is to get rid of him and his entire cohort of horribles. Job Two, to form means to revise and strengthen the laws that protect us from the lawlessness of such characters and see that they are not only enacted, but enforced.