The headline is a mid-item paragraph from ABCnews coverage. Later, a thought about why the word "weaponization" was italicized here, not in the original.
First, reporting is of Rudy's getting deservedly reamed yesterday in a 57 page default judgment issued by the trial judge in a Georgia federal court defamation action filed by two election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter. Separate from that civil action for damages, readers may scan the online Georgia indictment against Trump, et al. for mention of Ruby Freeman, for background.
A federal judge on Wednesday
awarded a default judgment to a pair of Georgia election workers as part
of their civil defamation suit against former Trump attorney Rudy
Giuliani, who also faces separate criminal charges in Fulton County.
The
mother-daughter tandem of Ruby Freeman and Wandrea "Shaye" Moss are
suing the former New York City mayor for defamation over erroneous
remarks he made accusing the pair of fraudulently manipulating ballots on Election Day 2020 in Georgia.
In
the days after the election, Freeman and Moss became the subjects of a
Trump-backed conspiracy theory that was later found to be "false and
unsubstantiated," according to an investigation
by the Georgia Elections Board. Giuliani, in an appearance before a
committee of the Georgia state legislature, told lawmakers that a video
circulating online showed "Ruby Freeman and Shaye Freeman Moss ... quite
obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports, as if they're vials
of heroin or cocaine."
For
months, Giuliani has rebuffed the pair's efforts to obtain relevant
discovery materials in the case. As a result, U.S. Judge Beryl Howell
found Giuliani on Wednesday liable for his defamatory remarks, levelled
harsh sanctions against him -- including the default judgment -- and
ordered a trial to determine the complete scope of damages.
"Giuliani
has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations
... and thwarted plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea 'Shaye' Moss'
procedural rights to obtain any meaningful discovery in this case,"
Howell wrote.
Howell, in her
57-page opinion, accused Giuliani of skirting discovery rules under the
guise of what he called "punishment by process" -- seeking to frame
himself as a victim of unfair persecution.
"Donning
a cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage to certain
audiences," Howell wrote, "but in a court of law this performance has
served only to subvert the normal process of discovery."
[image omitted]
Giuliani has previously stated
[see: 2 page nolo contendre filing] that he "does not contest the factual allegations" made by Freeman and
Moss regarding his statements, but that his statements were
"constitutionally protected."
On
Wednesday, Howell wrote that "Giuliani's stipulations hold more holes
than Swiss cheese" and "make clear his goal to bypass the discovery
process."
Howell speculated that
Giuliani's efforts to withhold discovery in this matter could reflect a
strategy meant to quell his growing legal exposure in other cases --
including the criminal charges he now faces in Fulton County, where he
and 18 others were charged earlier this month in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state.
"Perhaps,
he has made the calculation that his overall litigation risks are
minimized by not complying with his discovery obligations in this case,"
Howell wrote. "Whatever the reason, obligations are case specific and
withholding required discovery in this case has consequences."
Freeman and Moss, in a statement, lauded the ruling.
"Rudy
Giuliani helped unleash a wave of hatred and threats we never could
have imagined," their statement said. "It cost us our sense of security
and our freedom to go about our lives. Nothing can restore all we lost,
but today's ruling is yet another neutral finding that has confirmed
what we have known all along: that there was never any truth to any of
the accusations about us and that we did nothing wrong. We were smeared
for purely political reasons, and the people responsible can and should
be held accountable."
[...] Giuliani
political adviser Ted Goodman, in response to the ruling, said, "This
57 page opinion on discovery -- which would usually be no more than two
or three pages -- is a prime example of the weaponization of the justice
system, where the process is the punishment. This decision should be
reversed."
The ruling compounds the legal jeopardy for Giuliani at a time when he and Trump are both among 19 defendants
charged this month in a racketeering case related to efforts to
overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. It also creates the potential for
a massive financial penalty for Giuliani as the case proceeds to a
federal trial in Washington, where a jury would determine damages he may
be liable for.
He
will have a “final opportunity” to produce the requested information,
known under the law as discovery, but could face additional sanctions if
he fails to do so. In the meantime, Howell said, Giuliani and his
business entities must pay more than $130,000 in attorneys’ fees.
Howell
expressed skepticism at Giuliani’s claims that he cannot afford to
reimburse the plaintiffs in the case, noting that he recently listed his
apartment in Manhattan for $6.5 million and was reported to have flown
via private plane to Atlanta to surrender to charges there. He has
pleaded not guilty.
[...] Howell said that aside from an initial document production of 193 pages,
the information Giuliani had turned over consisted largely of “a single
page of communications, blobs of indecipherable data” and “a sliver of
the financial documents required to be produced.”
[...] Giuliani has blamed his failure to produce the requested documents on
the fact that his devices were seized by federal investigations in 2021
as a part of a separate Justice Department investigation that did not
produce any criminal charges.
[...] Last month, Giuliani conceded that he made public comments
falsely claiming the election workers committed ballot fraud during the
2020 election, but he contended that the statements were protected by
the 1st Amendment.
That caveated stipulation, [link] Howell said, has
“more holes than Swiss cheese” and suggested Giuliani was more
interested in conceding the workers’ claims than actually producing
meaningful discovery in the case.
“Yet, just as taking shortcuts
to win an election carries risks — even potential criminal liability —
bypassing the discovery process carries serious sanctions, no matter
what reservations a noncompliant party may try artificially to preserve
for appeal,” she said.
So, Rudy is claiming impecuniary status while facing an award of attorneys fees. Rudy might be running short of cash because of all the litigation cost arising from his volitional bad conduct. Get out the crying towel for poor Rudy.
Whining time: "Weaponization of the justice system" is an exceedingly unappealing usage appearing to have arisen in Repuclican House hearings and in other Republican keening over Trump's having to face consequences of his actions. The usage is so bothering that it should immediately cease as an affront to the English language.
Yes -- It is being said that Biden et al. have "weaponized" the Justice Department. Oh my! What to say?
Biden has been in DC a long time and seen and digested much that went on. (As in having a learning curve.) When searching Wikipedia's entry for Mitch McConnell given his recent health indications, this paragraph stood out, as relevant to Biden's lengthy DC experiential Gestalt:
The "Weaponization of the Justice Department" reality clearly is no new invention to Biden and Garland. Republicans reap as they've sown, and have no justification whatsoever in whining over goes-around-comes-around political activity.
The world would spin better on its axis if those using the offensive term would simply stop. Biden was schooled into how to negotiate DC, and the fact that his Justice Department is charging Trump with crimes, and Rudy with crimes, hinges upon their having had ample opportunity to act differently but choose to break laws.
How each new indictment gives Trump a polling boost and further cashflow astounds by its inexplicable happening. How anyone can suggest the man is beyond accountability for his past actions, indeed, past crimes, remains a mystery.
As to those being polled and giving up money based upon each new indictment - WTF are these people?
__________UPDATE__________
From reading the 57p Default Order, it is clear that Rules of Civil Procedure related to Discovery permit a judge, at her/his discretion, to impose a range of punitive measures when it appears to the Court that reasonable discovery has intentionally been frustrated. Of interest, the duty to preserve evidence is not specified in detail by rule, and a question for each person reading of this handling of the two election workers lawsuit is to consider personal data handling, such as timely backup, etc.
Reasonable people might negligently backup data. What is reasonable for Guiliani being in politics doing what he did, with the background he has, might differ for a Crabgrass reader who has experienced a disc crash.
When we lose data, or are disorganized in keeping it for retrieval, it usually proves to have no severe consequences. We live with it. Should we be hauled into court, we can perhaps sympathize with one who has difficultly in honestly trying to comply with discovery requirements. But Giuliani was a prosecutor, mayor of the largest city in the nation, and doing things where a reasonable person in such a situation might anticipate trouble. The trial judge held power to hold Giuliani in contempt and order him held in custody until he purged the contempt, but did not exercise that power, yet. We can all learn from this clearly unique situation, but easy bad habits will persist. The point is we likely will never be sued. If sued, we comply with duties in good faith. That is all we can do. A judge of Giuliani can have a sliding notion of good faith, requiring a greater showing by one having a background such as Giuliani vs one being a manual wage laborer.
The bottom line seems that Giuliani is not going to be cut much slack by the judicial branch, regardless of how much bellowing is raised from legislative branch persons, each with aims and motivations which may influence what is publicly said about "weaponization" of use of the judicial process from within the executive branch.
Is this judicial grant of a default judgment over discovery matters overreaching by the judicial branch, "weaponization" if you'd call it that, or is it something else? Each reader should think over such a question, to aid understanding of events as they will enfold. A fact - judges have enormous discretionary powers, the limit being on appeal other judges weigh whether sanctions fit the conduct, or not.
It is how the system operates. Anyone feeling sympathy for Rudy can feel justified for such feelings, but we are spectators of politicians' actions and the reactions they generate. We don't make the rules, and if the notion arises that the rules as made to unfairly favor the deeper pockets, Crabgrass offers no dispute. Consider who, which class, makes the rules, and then, what did you expect?
Rudy's world seems collapsing upon him, but he did go to Ukraine to try to dig up or generate dirt on Biden, (on behalf of Trump), and with such conduct can come a sense of exposure. Roger Stone, if you remember him, faced the judicial system, the weight of federal funds against his own, but he interestingly stayed loyal to Trump and coincidentally was pardoned. There are many lessons. Learning lessons ends when you croak, no sooner. Some may find excitement in that. Others may be repulsed. Some yawn, watch sports on TV, use X (formerly known as Twitter), and make it to the Reaper having voted as they did, motivated as they were, and everybody has one vote. It is in a sense a casino, bearing the name "capitalism."
DeSantis was elected
with 4,076,186, or 49.6% of the vote, just 0.4 points more than Gillum.
However, both candidates were dwarfed by the winning tally of amendment
4, which passed
with almost 65% of the vote (a bit more than 1m votes than DeSantis).
Amendment 4 was monumental not only because it was a constitutional
amendment to restore voting rights for felons – aside from murderers and
sex offenders – but because it was meant to undo the white supremacist
poll tax first instituted to keep Black people from voting during Jim
Crow.
DeSantis gutted the law – with a federal judge calling his intervention an “unconstitutional pay-to-vote system” – and instituted an elections police force that would go on to arrest older Black people for voting and criminalize honest misunderstandings of the law.
DeSantis would later up the ante, demanding that state legislators abandon
their own redistricting maps in favor of his proposed gerrymander,
which effectively eliminated Representative Al Lawson’s seat and doomed
the Black congressman’s re-election bid.
I am not familiar with Florida politics. I read this and it seems extreme.
I believe DeSantis is not Presidential. Somewhere along the line he will bump into criticism that FOX moderators and co-candidates - Republicans - declined to put into the record at this time. DeSantis will have to deal with it, seemingly having so far avoided it in any widespread press coverage. Florida is Florida. It is not a model for a nation. Being able to vote without harassment is a right and not some gate-keepered skin color thing. Fair districtding is intrinsically superior to unfair districting - with DeSantis on the wrong side of that clearly correct standard.
The best way to explain the aversion Crabgrass holds toward Ron DeSantis is to say he resembles Steve Bannon, as if having served on the same vessel during Navy years; and that each rings the bell here as being equally fit to preside over our nation.
It is subjective. It is objective in the sense all evidence as encountered online seems to bolster the comparison, and the guess is many may disagree with me while quite many more would agree.
The guess is the more you study that pair the stronger the resemblance would become. Others are left to flesh out that idea since the effort will not be taken here.
That above image and caption are also presented on the sidebar. This post will scroll into history, while the impact of the screen capture from the Mertens' WallStreetOnParade, deserves longer attention. That linked item is where the following early paragraphs are fleshed out later in the linked item.
We immediately headed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC.gov)
website to see if Big Oil or its attached-at-the-hip Charles Koch
network was behind this candidate. Ramaswamy wants to stroll into the
highest office in the United States despite no prior public office
experience. (Because that worked out so well for all of us the last time.)
Thus far, the big money trail has not led directly to Big Oil or the
Koch network, but just give it time. Ramaswamy is espousing the key hot
button issues that the big money Koch crowd demand in their candidates.
Ramaswamy’s official website lists these goals for his administration:
“Drill, frack & burn coal: abandon the climate cult & unshackle
nuclear energy;” cut the headcount among U.S. regulators by 75 percent;
relaunch the Reagan deregulatory revolution.
According to the Federal Election Commission, through June 30,
Ramaswamy’s campaign coffers have taken in $19.16 million, of which
$15.25 million came from Ramaswamy’s loans to the campaign and another
$750,462 in his own contributions to his campaign. To put it another
way, 84 percent of Ramaswamy’s campaign support has come out of his own
pocket – despite his efforts to make it appear that he has broad support
for his platform. In fact, when he stated on stage that climate change
was a hoax, he was loudly booed by the Republican audience in
attendance.
So how did Ramaswamy get those tens of thousands of individual
donations to qualify him to appear on the debate stage? He spent $10.13
million of his own money to raise $3.16 million from other people in the
first six months of this year.
Their method is direct. First look at FEC filings. Then, something which those less enterprising pundits ignore as being real work, they research the top money payees, and encapsulate a view of some of what's propelled Vivek onto stage center besides being smart, rich, articulate and hard working. It is not a long analysis, but good and to the point. (Hint: The top payee had a hand in making a past race closer than many might have guessed.)
The question of whether what we see is Vivek the person, or Vivek the creation of astute internal polling and image manipulation and polishing, focus groups tried one way, tried another, until BINGO, we go with that.
Vivek does add a salesman's approach that the competing career politicians have yet to fully try. If Vivek continues to gain momentum, the market will follow, Ron keeping up as best he can. Don still with half of the reported public polling percentage among likely Republican primary voters; early.
They are Republican voters. The rest of us cannot understand how they think, if they think. It seems a more visceral thing at play than regular thought. But one of their votes counts as much as yours, so that they have to be taken seriously.
Simplifying things - single sourcing the post. Notice from the beginning, it is a local Florida outlet, https://floridapolitics.com/, hence unknown at Crabgrass. It could be pro-Republican, a Dem advocate, news only, or otherwise. From the items considered, the appearance is posting news of some sort.
The Governor went from single digits to 18% in a new national survey.
In the latest sign that Wednesday night’s GOP presidential debate paid political dividends, Ron DeSantis is back in what one pollster calls a “solid” second place position afterwards.
An InsiderAdvantage
national survey of 850 likely Republican caucus and primary voters
conducted Thursday shows the Florida Governor with 18% support, nearly
doubling his support from 9.7% in the previous administration of the poll Aug. 19 and Aug. 20.
DeSantis gained eight points in less than a week, and much of that came at the expense of the non-debating Donald Trump, who fell from 51% to 45%, meaning DeSantis’ deficit shrank from 41% to 27% in just a matter of days.
Nikki Haley is in third
place in this poll, with 11% support. She previously was at just 4.8%,
meaning she more than doubled her support after the debate in Milwaukee.
Vivek Ramaswamy has 7% support, a marginal improvement from the 6.3% he had previously.
“Although our survey showed that Vivek
Ramaswamy won the debate by a narrow margin, Ron DeSantis and Nikki
Haley were the two major beneficiaries of the debate when it came to the
actual horse race. [...]
A Léger survey conducted Wednesday and Thursday in conjunction with the New York Post shows that while DeSantis has 9% support overall (52 points behind Donald Trump, but in second place nonetheless), there is an age gap.
Voters 54 years old or younger are much
less likely to back the Florida Governor’s 2024 bid for the Republican
nomination than those 55 and up.
Among voters 18 to 34 years of age, DeSantis’ 5% puts him behind Mike Pence’s 6% and in a tie with Vivek Ramaswamy. Trump is at 58% with this group.
Among voters 35 to 54 years of age,
DeSantis is still at 5%, putting him 3 points behind Ramaswamy with that
cohort, and 59 points behind Trump’s 64% with this cohort.
Among voters 55 and older, DeSantis is
in a much stronger position, with 14% support. While that’s 47 points
behind Trump, the Governor is still 10 points ahead of Ramaswamy and
Pence with the older crowd.
[...]
As a bet, he is less popular with Democrats of that younger age group. Last -
The survey from Public Opinion
Strategies, a DeSantis pollster, shows the Florida Governor improving on
a number of fronts, including the overall ballot test, which “shows
DeSantis picking up significant ground since the debate. Both DeSantis
and Nikki Haley saw significant increases in their ballot standing since before the debate, while Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy both slipped back a bit.”
DeSantis has moved from 14% before the
debate to 21% after the debate, per the new poll. That puts him 20
points behind Trump, but 10 points ahead of Haley and 14 points ahead of
Ramaswamy and Scott.
Public Opinion Strategies also deems
DeSantis the “clear winner” Wednesday, after he “won every single key
‘attribute’ among likely Iowa caucus-goers” among the eight candidates
on stage. The Governor is seen as the “strongest conservative,” the
“strongest leader,” the most “able to defeat” Joe Biden and Trump, and “strongest on border security.”
DeSantis also saw a +4 improvement in overall favorability, the polling memo notes, while “Trump, Ramaswamy, and Chris Christie
were the big losers from the debate in terms of their image as each of
these candidates had negative change in their net
favorable-unfavorable.”
The pollster contends that more people than ever are ruling out Trump support.
“More than one-third of voters now say they are ‘NOT considering Trump’ — the highest figure we’ve seen,” the pollster notes.
Public Opinion Strategies also argues that Ramaswamy was simply a
Trump proxy Wednesday night and that Iowans don’t intend to caucus for
him.
[...]
AND - You can take it to the bank! They'll laugh at you, but you can do it.
This early, after a single Murdoch softball session, what does it mean with nobody asking Ron about whether Florida voter suppression is racial suppression, vs political suppression - blacks the target or Dems the target; with it clear Black Dems were disadvantaged.
Ron will be asked. Things are early and Murdoch will throw Ron softballs whenever possible.
Ron will have 'splaining to do.Aug. 24, 2023, NPR. About redistricting in litigation.
Indirectly touching the question of impact of the suppression, itself, and how it came to be at Ron's insistance, which has repercussions regardless of how the litigation resolves. See, Politico, from over a year ago showing certain fingerprints all over the situational decision making.
Expect that within Republican environs neither Scott nor Ramaswamy will confront Ron as racist, they lose points by doing so. That confrontation will come. Democrats have likely already noticed.
The only apparent way Ron can dodge the confrontation ultimately happening nationally, is to lose the Republican nomination. Which is likely enough, but presently unclear.
It has been on the sidebar for a while - one way I would measure Vivek. HIs wisdom.
Ted Cruz being the question, but also an answer? Ted is not feeling Presidential going into 2024. Coincidentally, his Senate seat is up for reelection. So, what is Ted up to beyond protecting the current power base? Anything?
From the sidebar -
Readers can click that image to read it, draw the impression juxtaposition of the two images within the image capture suggests, read the original from which the screen capture was taken, or follow this websearch = vivek ramaswamy ted cruz
Former President Donald Trump crowned
tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy the winner of the Republican
presidential debate Wednesday night — for singing his praises.
“President Trump, I believe, was the
best president of the 21st century,” Ramaswamy said in a clip from the
debate Trump posted on Truth Social.
Trump, who opted out of the debate and instead had an interview with commentator Tucker Carlson air on social media, said it was a good move by the 38-year-old political newcomer.
[video omitted]
“This answer gave Vivek Ramaswamy a big WIN in the debate because of a thing called TRUTH. Thank you Vivek!”
WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz took the GOP
presidential candidates to task Friday for failing to promise a pardon
for Donald Trump — adding that he expects the former president to be a
convicted felon by Election Day.
“The
answer should have been absolutely, I will pardon Donald Trump on Jan.
20, 2025,” Cruz said on his “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast, offering
his assessment of Wednesday night’s debate.”This is blatant election
interference.”
Biotech entrepreneur
Vivek Ramaswamy challenged the other seven contenders on stage to “join
me in making a commitment that on day one, you would pardon Donald
Trump.”
None volunteered.
Cruz called it “a strategic mistake by every other candidate on that stage not to respond, ‘Hell yes.’”
Six of the eight candidates did say they would support Trump as the nominee even if he’s been convicted of a felony.
There’s “a very real chance” of that, Cruz said.
Trump, Cruz, and Vivek all on the same page. Possible conclusions - tacit collusion -or- conscious parallelism -or- blind chance. Or of course, a simple healthy normal mutual three-cornored respect could be at play. That about summarizes all possible inferences to draw from presented circumstantial evidence.
A degree of like-mindedness seems undeniable.
Last: On the headline of this post, "repulse." That's subjective. Crabgrass opines. Opinions can differ. The post is not intended as conspiracy theory. It is intended to suggest three individuals who may be linked into parallelism, where the gravitas of one may touch the others. How readers apportion beliefs of positive or negative gravitas for any or all is up to them.
(Look to the blog banner. Birds of a feather, flocking together.)
___________UPDATE___________
Not worth another post, but another conundrum. Politico, on this post, publishes this collage image. What intent might you infer from that editorial decision? None?
Whether Gary is correct or not, time will tell. Gary has touted Ron and Florida and vouchers before. The thought here is that vouchers undermine public education in its fundamental universality where childless people pay a part because universal general public education is viewed as a bedrock for democracy to succeed and prosper, as new generations grow into citizen maturity.
Banks: What is perhaps more of interest than that Florida-like voucher plan Ron may likely be pushing is uncertainty where possibly all bets are off.
There have been recent mid-sized bank failures and bailouts of deposits exceeding the nominal $250,000 cutoff, but not too recently. Crypto has been part of those failures, but also the Silicon Valley bank splat had regulators mouthing that high tech dominance was at stake if the depositors, some as young viable tech ventures, were not given a hundred cents on the dollar for deposits exceeding the cutoff.
Not too big to fail. Too important to fail. Modified story, same result. Moral hazard of knowing a government bailout will happen.
That Wallstreet on Parade item - S & P with an across the board downgraded banking sector outlook is an invitation to speculate over whether the economy might suffer a hit between now and the primaries, or between primaries and the general election, to where the reaction among members of the public can be guessed, but is unknown.
Clearly, banks can remain stressed but not plunge over the brink in any great number, and the speculation of something of that kind affecting an election outcome can prove wrong. The point is to recognize the possibility, and to watch for any economic bounce which might impact citizen outlook and add worry.
Back to vouchers -
The guess here is Trump will not take to pushing vouchers, while the push could hurt DeSantis when people see through "parental choice" wording as being public subsidy of children of the elite attending private schools, or being subsidized into narrow dogma indoctrination, such as Western Reserve Academy (the private elite school where Kashkari graduated), or the parochial schools a disproportionate bloc of Supreme Court Justices went to.
Regular folks subsidizing the children of the elite to gain a K-12 leg up is fundamentally undemocratic. Public money should be solely for public education. Private money should buy private schooling. That rational status quo is under persistent attack, the "parental choice" shibboleth being a current flavor, but maintaining strong public education spending is a fitting way for a nation to democratize itself in preparing a next generation of citizen-voters.
Public education works, so preserve it, nurture it into best ways, but do not surrender it to glib phrasing meaning vouchers.
UPDATE: Matt Birk and Dr. Scott Jensen tried to sell vouchers to Minnesota, and Tim Walz was reelected. That was last election. Subsequent elections can differ.
What else to call the mugshot, but posed? The Geogia case is less a "honed focus" on Trump, in comparison to the federal indictment in DC. It is a naming and charging of a collective. As charged, RICO. But, leaning toward the camera, scowl intended, scowl shown. A let's-raise-money-off-it scowl. Not an I-didn't-do-it scowl, but a I-did-it-so-what scowl. The remember-this as THE scowl of a career in posing. The hope here is a conviction. Several chances, several convictions.
____________UPDATE____________
This is an editorial note about making this post. For some deliberation, the mental debate was leave it with headline, link and image - as telling a clear story one way; or add commentary, as the other way. Commentary leaving no doubt, vs. an openly vague, tighter post.
After yet more reflection, another editorial choice. Leave it as done, or update - where the update has to be worth it.
The overly orange mugshot, the set of the face conveying what it conveyed brought to my mind an earlier online overly orange posed facial image, conveying what it conveyed.
And then, post the other image, only; draw the parallel; or nail it so tightly that any ambiguity could not persist. I.e., post this trailer.
------------------------------------
It is likely authorities in Georgia would not let Trump do his mugshot while displaying a flag. I guess it likely he'd have used one, had they allowed it.
___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Not making an effort to "follow the mugshot" online, but going to a "reliable" source; Breitbart showed the mugshot here, reported on trump trying to monetize it here, and reported John Bolton also judged it posed.
How could you not judge it posed? That mugshot picture just says "Roy Cohn" to me. Cohn and Trump are twin sons of different mothers, and one is the other and vice versa - that being my judgment. Opinions can differ.
No more post updating here. Anything else will be done as a new item.
The Trump-less debate will scroll off stage, except for reporting of polling after it was held; the next debate/show set for September, early in the second half of the month, if memory is correct.
Why Breitbart? It has been a Republican outlet since before Breitbart's death. It seems the Mercer family, a major funding source for Breitbart and/or the site's editors are in the Trump camp; and the debate lacked Trump. Why not?
Agree or disagree, Gary is clear in stating his opinion. He likes DeSantis.
Why the Google? Keeping feet grounded in reality always seems worth doing.
I cannot figure one good reason anyone would like Trump. But - they do.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Mitch Berg posted today, but not about Republican Presidential candidacies. If there are any other MN GOP pundits around besides Gary and Mitch, I do not know of them or their work. The field narrowed when Andy Aplikowski quit posting.
Andy is still active among the Republicans in Minnesota. His blogging was a barometer of his candid thoughts while he posted.
Other outlets may have covered the story, but Crabgrass read of it in TheHill.
The story is straightforward, and there's no paywall - subscription login.
What the story brings to mind, Zevon's song, "Send Lawyers, Guns and Money."
Guns and money are fungible. Lawyers, that's its own story. A paragraph late in the story:
Prosecutors have likewise requested a hearing for De Oliveira’s attorney
John Irving, noting he still represents three witnesses in the case,
which they say “raises the possibility that he might be in the position
of cross-examining current clients.”
In these multi-party cases there is a prosecutorial favoring of each-against-the-other, but cross-examining one's other clients does suggest some deck chair rearrangement would ring truer. It is improper for defendants to be contacting and talking with witnesses, that is witness tampering, but the lawyers representing witnesses and defendants can talk to one another and that is called privileged negotiation, at least in civil litigation. The expectation being lawyers are professionals and would not overstep any standards of impermissible conduct.
There is a chance prosecutorial argument might try to claim special case status, where the witness with lawyer-1 said something, and then with laywer-2 changed his testimony; that the "otherwise" privileged lawyer-client privilege was "waived."
It is unlikely the each-against-the-other herding effort would reach that far, but it is a question ripe for reader thought.
I wonder if Trump and Tucker will discuss such stuff this evening, in the interview.
Tonight will be that first Republican Presidential Debate (Trump absent), where Ron DeSantis will have the chance to prove his chops to the faithful, by mentioning and praising the South Carolina jurists.
And you don't have to watch!
There will be tomorrow There will be YouTube sound bites. If Ron goes that way, it will be bite enough to be sounded, by YouTube posting and various pundit commentary that websearch will locate online.
You even have the opportunity to go X (formerly "Twitter") to watch a former FOX commentator interview an indicted politician, should you want to do that.
With Hollywood artists on strike, it's the GOP yacks, X, sporting events, or reruns.
Strib on Monday published a locally authored item about Phillips, headlined, "
'Perhaps in the future': Rep. Phillips signals he's unlikely to run for president in 2024 ---The Minnesota Democrat is urging President Joe Biden to "pass the torch."
And with that, the detail of the story fleshes things out, while the headline speaks.
If Biden is reelected and cannot finish a full term, then in 2028 Harris would be an incumbent, likely seeking her first elected term.
Biden has surprised by being more progressive than his past suggested. He has had money enough and donors enough, and from the start said
Nothing has fundamentally changed. However, progressives have not been ones critical of Biden's management. Ones such as Josh Gottdheimer have been the foot dragging Clintonian relics. Yes, check Wikipedia. Clintonian Josh, a reminder -
enough is enough. too much has been TOO MUCH
With Biden rooted in the conservative part of the party, being better than anticipated, what part of the party is Phillips in? Hint: Glen Taylor's Strib calls him "moderate."
Harris vs Phillips, as a hypothetical? You decide.
Briefly, here is the part of Strib's item that speaks loudest:
Biden is the oldest sitting president in U.S. history and
would be 82 at the time of a potential second inauguration. Yet, that
fact hasn't helped Phillips build much public momentum for viable
alternatives. And even though a group of younger Republicans are running
for president on the GOP side, Trump remains the frontrunner and is set
to turn 78 next year.
"I'm
not the first person in the United States of America to recognize that
we face an actuarial issue with both candidates. ... Not just President
Biden, but also former President Trump," Phillips said. "When I say
actuarial issue, all you have to do is look at an actuarial table to
understand the likelihood of either of these men living through the end
of the next term, period."
Yet Phillips said if Biden is the Democratic nominee, he will strongly support the president's bid.
"I will do everything I can
to ensure he is re-elected despite my concerns, because they don't even
come close to the concerns that I have about his likely opponent,"
Phillips said.
Even
within Democratic circles, Phillips was not a nationally known name
before his dance with a 2024 bid. Being this public about the
presidential race has given Phillips the kind of national media
attention that he hasn't had during much of his three terms in Congress.
But breaking from Democratic
leaders so publicly about the 2024 primary may also threaten Phillips'
ability to win higher office at the state and federal level in the
future.
"Let
me assure you, if I wanted to raise my profile as a Democrat, do you
think this is the way I would have gone about it?" Phillips said, noting
the "extraordinary amount of heat" he's taken from the establishment
and local activists.
He raised his profile. Going about it that way. Facts speak.
Phillips still keeps media attention, never once uttering the word "Harris."
Give him credit for that. And -
Does he mean pass the torch to Harris? Or - step aside, allow a free for all? A greater degree of clarity might help citizens' understandings.
Because Clark, negotiating lawyer for Hunter Biden, might later have to be a witness as to plea bargaining and promising, he resigned from the case.
Abbe Lowell is reported to currently represent Hunter Biden as lead counsel.
There appears to be disagreement over whether DoJ in negotiation and via a DoJ-signed document referencing a second separate, equal dated, plea item's attachment forestalled further DoJ investigation, or not. Politico links to the pair of plea papers.
From yesterday's NYTimes item it appears charges in the present court have been dropped with DoJ having named Weiss special prosecutor, where a final report would be filed, and with the judge who stymied the plea deal losing jurisdiction while at the hearing before her there was disagreement between the two sides of the scope intended for the plea submission.
At that hearing, a different DoJ lawyer appeared, from the one who had negotiated plea matters up to that point. Presumably the negotiating DoJ lawyer would, like Clark for Biden, be a witness about promises made.
Where thing move next, and how ultimately the situation is resolved, are both open questions as of yesterday's reporting.
Outside of the two earlier linked items, this item arguably sheds further light upon the scope of immunity question the court raised at the plea hearing. Scope of immunity considerations is what caused the judge to refuse the deal. No contract meeting of the minds, per the lawyers for each side at the hearing.
UPDATE: That last cited item, in turn, links here. Crabgrass has no way of knowing the credibility of any allegations, via only knowing things published on the web.
FURTHER: More about the hearing where plea understandings were at issue. A major question concerned Hunter Biden apparently having not duly registered as a representative of foreign interests - with how one registers and whether the DOJ has a non-waivable vs discretionary duty to prosecute non-registration. And whether ambiguous wording in plea papers did or did not include immunity in that direction.
Wikipedia re FARA. From items examined online Crabgrass has no firm understanding of whether FARA law is largely settled; or evolving, with the guess being evolving. Perhaps FARA law is sufficiently unsettled that there is no good precedent of whether wording of the plea items was sufficient to waive FARA liability as part of an immunity grant within and as part of a limited plea. That would be a legal question apart from the political overtones of the defendant being the President's son. As a fact matter, Hunter Biden's cocaine addiction and aberrant behavior might be cause for him to in fact be largely unable to firmly remember things from key times and contexts. "Not that I can remember" might be fully appropriate and true responses to questioning he may at some point face.
Reps Craig and Omar are the only HOUSE incumbents challenged, so far. Omar being primaried, Craig drawing a Repubican challenge.
The link is one readers might wish to bookmark. If Dean Phillips is really hot to primary after a higher job, there is Klobuchar's job which he could seek. He'd have better luck there than bothering Biden.
____________UPDATE____________
The Phillips - Klobuchar suggestion has infirmities. First, Phillips has no ageism nor slumping polls argument against Klobuchar. Also, Phillips might like Klobuchar where she is and have no desire to primary her. The donors Phillips sought out back east might have been lukewarm to Phillips as a presidential candidate, and could be even more lukewarm to a Klobuchar challenge. There, we do not know who Dean sought out, so we have no way to even guess donor mood or preferences.
Dean is unlikely to primary Biden. Equally, he is unlikely to primary Amy.
He has not specifically indicated any worry some of the Hunter Biden Republican attack effort out of GOP House folks would reach to entail anything really wrong by Hunter (beyond tax delinquency which Hunter, with help of a Hollywood lawyer benefactor, has remedied). Aside from that and the firearm thing, there has been nothing of any fraudulent nature which would be criminal. Hunter made money in business. As did Phillips.
Hence, nothing there that would stick to Joe, to in fact discredit his Presidency in any manner.
If Hunter were in business relations with Chinese, Ukrainian or Romanian firms, doing arms length dealing and not doing any representation of such foreign firms as a lobbyist, there should be no FARA dimension at play.
If foreign firms were not being sanctioned, and he sought lawful profitable generic business opportunity, where's the beef?
If Hunter urged foreigners to believe his kinship mattered, Cindy Crawford in her business touts her being beautiful and that it matters, Microsoft touts its software as better than Linux as something that matters, and nobody in business makes much headway by disparaging their own product in business dealings. It is always a sale.
So, far there is no there, there, in House Republican shame throwing. They speculate. They structure rhetorical possibilities. They bring in witnesses. And they lack any hard evidence of anything Hunter did unlawful aside from personal tax delinquency, much less anything reaching the White House.
Moreover, if Phillips has a worry about what might arise from House GOP witch hunting, he's not made that a major talking point.
And, so far, there is no real proof that the GOP huff-and-puff is anything of substance.
Were it roping Joe Biden into some provable wrong-doing, we'd have heard of that long ago. They reach. They murmur. They have proven not one truly material thing.
They know it. Phillips knows it, so slumping early polling and ageism are his twin anchors. Neither has much heft.
Biden has proven wiser and more progressive in getting things done than many expected; but Phillips is not arguing policy. He does not denounce infrastructure passage after years of talk without action. He is not a fossil fuel trumpet. It is as if he suggests a worry that is not really there.
FURTHER: For those in the nation seeking a reset, great or lesser after the Covid panic/pandemic, and ultimately envisioning a world order based on global internationalism, the business Hunter Biden did with firms from other nations leans in that direction.
That he had a cocaine and womanizing period of his life touches his at-the-time being in business where firms nonetheless decided to hire him on corporate boards and otherwise. They saw value. If there was no selling of influence, and none has been shown despite much noise and innuendo, then it is no crime beyond possession while using a controlled substance. Taxes and weapon being already in the record, Hunter's record, independent of the Presidency.
If Hunter projected the illusion of influence, without any, and foreign businessmen bought, then that was their private-sector decision making, and bless them.
Selling the sizzle and no steak is a cliche because it happens. Hunter was offered money and accepted, and there is no Republican whine about fraud or misrepresentation against adult business people making judgments which more sagacious people might have avoided. The Republicans want so hard for it not to have been a misrepresentation that they pee in their pants over a possibility - to where weighing otherwise is not on their radar. Absent from their agenda. Not contemplated. Counterproductive thinking. A likelihood they'd rather dismiss from the start of their thinking and not a fitting part for their story. Possible misrepresentations towards foreign businessmen is not considered. Not to be pursued nor even mentioned. Do it the rabid Republican way. Sling mud.
Business judgment can come in a range of expectations, and be free of crime. Or fraud might be at play.
BOTTOM LINE: If there was selling of influence, prove it or shut up. That is the understanding House Republicans seem to lack, so that they need to be told. If the press will not tell them that because the press loves their feeding innuendo upon conjecture; that is a fault of the press for which no one in the Biden family bears responsibility.
The media wants to sell advertising, so viewership is lured by the lurid. That is not the best of worlds for the public. But it is the world the public faces.
A huckster press keeps the Republicans going. So far, they have gone nowhere, but with much noise getting there.
If the norm in situations of tax delinquency is to not press charges against businessmen who pay up, then Hunter Biden being delinquent during a messed up part of his life merits the norm. Extra punishment because his father holds high office seems unfair - making a show, outside of normal practice.
Coolican at MinnReformer editorializes in tune with the Crabgrass headline:
U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer, who represents
the 6th District and has risen quickly in Congress to become the
Republican majority whip, is all-in with the coup plotters.
In the hours after former President
Donald Trump was again indicted — this time charged by a grand jury for
conspiring to overturn the Georgia election he lost — Emmer charged:
The Democrats’ weaponization of our justice system continues —
this time with a left-wing district attorney who is using the latest
indictment against President Trump to boost her own political career.
The American people aren’t falling for it.
What we’re not falling for is that Emmer actually believes any of this.
He voted to certify the election results on Jan. 6, which is an acknowledgment that President Joe Biden won the election.
Having accepted Biden as the winner,
Emmer must somehow pretend that Trump made no effort to illegally
overturn the results, even though Trump has been talking about it for
years.
No doubt Emmer heard the relevant bits of the phone call
Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a
Republican, in which Trump sought to “find” the votes necessary to win
Georgia and made vague threats of criminal liability should
Raffensperger not accede to his demands.
Coolican continues from that start, and the MinnReformer link is given at the start of this post. Readers can follow the link for the entire posting.
The essence is in the opening, as quoted, Emmer knows but is blowing smoke because Trump is the heart of the white supremacist faction of the GOP base, and Emmer wants to keep his job. To do that he needs white supremacist CD6 votes.
It is simple, but ugly politics. Trump tried to "weaponize" weak and dumb ways to avoid the fact Biden won. He did so in a criminal way. Emmer, in total good faith, should admit exactly that - the charges in each jurisdiction in which Trump is being charged are statements of elements of crimes charged, and Trump's fate will be in the hands of jurors in each such venue. But the prosecutors are not "weaponizing" anything. THEY ARE DOING THEIR JOB.
What is insane, House Republicans are bleating in chorus that a prosecutor, Weiss, did not do his job against Hunter Biden, while whining at the same time about prosecutors who are doing their job.
Politics and logical thought often diverge.
And, yes, Weiss perhaps should have been more aggressive in vetting Hunter Biden's conduct and what to charge of it as criminal.
That is no justification to attack those who are attempting to hold Donald John Trump liable for his crimes. Those doing the job.
Emmer knows all that. And does not mind the disconnect between what he knows and what he's said. He's been in politics, so long, that it is too long.
