John Eastman deserves his 15 minutes of fame. Regardless of whether it was Andy Warhol who coined the phrase.

 Yes, it is proper that the Warhol thing has first brief commentary. Two sources; Phrase Finder, and Wikipedia, the latter telling you more than you'd want to know. Phrase Finder states -

In February 1968 Warhol exhibited his first international retrospective exhibition at the Moderna Museet gallery in Stockholm. The exhibition catalogue contained "In the future everybody will be world famous for fifteen minutes.". It is far and away the best-known of the many quotations attributed to Warhol, in fact it is probably the only comment of his that most people know.

The line began to bore Warhol in later years when interviewers kept asking him about it. In 1979 he did repeat it though, claiming that the line had truth - "my prediction from the sixties finally came true: In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.".

So Warhol is the source, he did say it, and referenced it years after it appeared in a museum catalog. It is not a misattributed quote.

EASTMAN

Unless you are weird by knowing of Eastman or have a photographic memory of the name, you likely are saying, "Who?".

This morning I learned of Eastman, proving you can stumble over many strange things while reading Internet posts. After reading the Daily Beast post on the womens' march, 2021, I followed a link to this DB commentary:

Trump Lawyer Recalls ‘Uncomfortable’ Showdown With Pence After Election

LEGAL EAGLE?

Blake Montgomery

Reporter/Editor

Published Oct. 02, 2021 9:20PM ET 

Reuters

The lawyer who convinced Donald Trump he could overturn the 2020 presidential election recounted the moment in the Oval Office when Mike Pence tried to derail the former president’s worst instincts in an interview with The New York Times published Saturday. John Eastman crafted the two-page legal memo spelling out how former Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, thus extending Trump’s power.

Not a flattering image, and likely chosen by DB as such. At least Eastman had the good sense to wear a topcoat on a chilly Jan. 6, DC day. Eastman has had earlier DB coverage:

Much like other efforts by Trump’s lawyers during the post-election legal blitz to cancel Biden’s decisive victory, this new lawsuit has little hope of achieving that goal, even as President Trump pitches it to his supporters as the first step to reclaiming the presidency.

Underscoring the suit's remote prospects is the lawyer being asked to push it.

Chapman University law professor John Eastman is the attorney representing Trump., according to the court filing. He is a familiar face for Fox News viewers, having made his biggest media splash this year when he authored a widely  panned Newsweek op-ed that engaged in groundless birtherism around Harris.

In the op-ed, Eastman claimed that the Democratic senator wasn’t a natural born citizen, even though she was clearly born in Oakland, California, because she was born to non permanent residents of the country: an Indian mother and a Jamaican father. He extended that line of reasoning to argue that she lacked the eligibility to run for vice president of the United States.

The essay, published in August under the title, “Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility,” was considered so laughable and racist at the news organization that it triggered a revolt among staffers and, eventually, a public apology. But by then, President Trump was already using the op-ed to spread innuendo about Harris’s eligibility, and telling reporters that Eastman, who now represents him as a personal attorney, “brilliant.”

[...] Over the past four years, Eastman has joined a number of lawsuits seeking to support conservative causes and Trump administration officials.

The first discussed DB item linked to a lengthier NYT item which might interest some readers. It has more bio information than DB gave.

Last, Gateway Pundit sees injustice heaped upon poor lawyer Eastman as an outcome of his having spoken to the Jan. 6 crowd before Trump, himself, worked that crowd. No quote beyond:

[...] After the riots at the US Capitol Dr. John Eastman was fired from his position as law professor at Chapman University.

According to a group of current and former law students Dr. Eastman was wrongly smeared and attacked for allegedly inciting violence at the US Capitol hours later.

Several acquaintances of Dr. Eastman are now speaking out defending their friend against the salacious accusations.

[...] 

Like some Crabgrass readers, I questioned the above "salacious" terminology as wrong; it was not a Harvey Weinstein thing, not that at all. No groping, no inuendo, just a warmup speech to Trump's Jan. 6 crowd.

Now - The Big Question:

Did it take you more than fifteen minutes to read the above? The guess, yes, if you followed links. No, if you did not. Ancillary question, does this post make him "famous," any more than cited and more widely read web content did?

_____________UPDATE____________

Crooks and Liars has a recent post on Eastman and the NYT. After law school at U.Chicago, he clerked for Clarence Thomas; that among other little known facts.

Stillness in the Storm, re Eastman. Posted Jan. 6, 2021.

A websearch.

The refreshing thing about the womens'/Roe v Wade march, after all that Trump Jan. 6 junk? They did not abuse flags; U.S. or Confederate. They were not obnoxious that way.

Reporting of the march is all over the web. Two links, Buzzfeed here, and BBC here are offered to highlight the online images which show crowd size, conduct, and intent. Breitbart did not dare to try to spin it, they just turtled along as if it had not happened. The Breitbart way - not fit to our bias, not covered as "news." Finding instead Breitbart alternate facts.

So damned refreshing! None of that "wave the flag." None! Phony partiotism BS wholly absent, since these are real patriots marching for a genuine cause. Without need for nationalistic props. Signs, yes. Plenty, but no flag abuse. Not a deplorable among them.

And the QAnon Shaman did not show up! Two bonus points awarded.

Want more? No teargas. No projectiles from tricked out riot cops. No burned buildings. No people being grabbed by sunglassed suits and thrown into anonymous big black SUVs with darkened windows to be hauled away to mass holding grounds. 

And if that was a show of solidarity, just wait for the Trump appointees to hoe on Roe. It will be armed and dangerous, if that happens. Or it should be, since it's - For justice and fairness - For truth, justice, and the American Way - For the people -

A poll which misses big time. The future is the climate and the fossil fuel sock puppet Manchin and the backstabber of the people Schumer are cooking climate crime ("sequestering carbon dioxide" as a goal is just "burn baby burn" crap warmed over). That pair has no shame.

DWT has their poll analysis. Strangely, it was a poll sponsored by a School of Public Health, and lo, look at the priorities reported back "by the public," ostensibly meaning something besides schools of public health know how to bias a poll.

There's an elucidating new poll out this morning from the Harvard School of Public Health for Politico on the public's priorities among the many programs covered by Biden's Build Back Better proposal. When it comes to "extremely important," you can see what the top priority is: lower drug prices.

click the image to enlarge and read it

And that breaks down as the top priority for Democrats (45%), Republicans (38%) and independents (37%). It's also much more important for all Americans-- regardless of party identification-- than hard infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), which will certainly come as a surprise to conservative members of Congress (in both parties).

The death-fearing old folks want what they want, and they vote, but for the future of the human race it's not about me and them, but about - big surprise, the future of the human race on the planet which so far has been good to humans, but will not get mad but most surely will get even.

DWT continues - 

With every Republican opposed to allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with Big PhRMA, the program has bene put in danger by corrupt conservatives among the Democrats, particularly New Dems Kathleen Rice of Long Island and Scott Peters of San Diego, as well as the entire Blue Dog caucus with particularly corrupt members Kurt Schrader (OR), Henry Cuellar (south Texas) and Lou Correa (Orange County) the tip of the spear. This morning, writing for Politico, Sarah Owermohle reported that the drug pricing plan is in peril as some paid-off DINOs spar with Pelosi over the scope and details. "Democratic leaders are now considering scaling back a House leadership-backed proposal or dropping it entirely from the $3.5 trillion social spending package. That would likely be a death knell for the Democrats' chances of keeping the majority in the midterms. No members I asked wanted to go on record agreeing with this electoral assessment but, off record, one went even further. She told me that besides from needing to pass provisions lowering drug prices-- fast-- "If Democrats don’t deliver on expanding Medicare to cover eyes, ears and teeth; affordable college; and checks for children, then they will lose both Houses next year."

It confuses me that Republicans are in lock-step opposed to these polled "top items" and yet the DWT theme is if these things are not delivered the Republicans will be taking both houses of congress. Yes, they are tight on GOTV whereas Dems are lax if uninspired, but still - - - 

Climate reform, to work, has to be starting with burning less, (steel production is coal intensive to where less steel comes with less carbon dioxide but if more steel is wanted and produced the carbon load has to be reduced elsewhere). A combination is needed, burning less together with getting renewable energy moving off home plate as the top priority. 

Roads and bridges? Even with electric-battery vehicles, it's more "burn baby burn." Trade unions want the short term jobs, but who else wants it? The wheels of commerce want what the trade unions want, but you cannot eat a new bridge, and miles more of spiffy roads will not fix your teeth at reasonable cost, government assisted being an ideal.

Getting to Manchin and Schumer and their Page of Shame -  "THE MANCHIN MANIFESTO" -

click the image to enlarge and read it

Fascism is what Fascism does. Fascism does not need to be single party, strong man run; it can be an elite doing mischief, however many parties there are, two being best for the illusion of a choice.

These two. Schumer and Manchin, are sociopaths in seats of power. It had to have been idiots and charletans (ill informed voters as idiots, the two party system as charletans) who put the pair in DC with hands on the levers of power.

Does that suggest a focus for fixing what's broke?

As long as you've a vote, under the presumption votes are counted fairly, there is chance and opportunity. Seize the day. Do not vote for incumbents in any primary you can vote in, and primaries will be more important than the general election. New blood? A welcomed need. Schumer, for certain, has worn out his welcome and his backstabbing everyone else along with Manchin, because they can, should be shut down, one way or another.

Storm the Bastille. If that ends up the only option, it can happen. Wise people in DC might be able to avert such, but only if humane too. Decency is needed, and neither Schumer nor Manchin seem to have any.

...............................................

UPDATE - Note, in reading the Manchin Manifesto, "CCUS" is bogus; this link.

FURTHER: nymag.com posts an interesting analysis; while still constrained to guesswork and if-then caveats aplenty.

The threat of insider trading at the Fed.

 MSN publishes a Reuters item, "Fed resignations don't blunt calls for broader ethics changes." By Howard Schneider --- stating in part -

Powell has opened a broad review of Fed ethics rules and at a press conference last week promised change. Asked if he had confidence in Kaplan and Rosengren he replied with a curt "no one is happy."

Kaplan said he resigned because his activity "risks becoming a distraction" to the Fed. Rosengren cited a worsening of a longstanding health issue that he hoped to better control with a lifestyle change. He was accepted onto the kidney transplant list in June, 2020.

 Nobody is going to jail, but high positioning in the Fed is inherent "insider" status. So while there, don't trade. Blind trust holdings. Whatever, just don't profit from non-public knowledge of upcoming Fed policy/actions.

 

Further coverage of China's ban on crypto currency mining/trading/activity.

 Link. Earlier Crabgrass coverage of the topic, here.

Secret document cosigned by Manchin and Schumer, from July? What did Biden know of this mischief? And when did he know it?

 First, links to the story as told by multiple Internet posts. Foremost, the "Agreement" itself, July 28, 2021, date; signed by perp Manchin and perp Schumer. What role, re the document specifics, was Schumer signing onto, back months ago? The document is silent on that, silent on any secret intent, silent on whether Biden was scammed without notice, as were others.

Coverage: Politico, HuffPo, eenews.net

Quoting from the latter link for context -

Climate policy has emerged as one of the toughest challenges in striking a deal on Democrats’ reconciliation package, with a chasm between Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and much of the rest of the party.

That divide crystallized yesterday after POLITICO reported a July 28 memo signed by Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) specifying a $1.5 trillion top line for reconciliation — much lower than House Democrats’ $3.5 trillion package — and the inclusion of natural gas, coal and carbon capture in clean energy tax policies (Greenwire, Sept. 30 [behind subscription wall]).

Manchin’s stance is threatening to derail the proposed Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP) that would likely be central to meeting President Biden’s emissions goals, frustrating Democrats who see reconciliation as one of the last chances to address climate change before it’s too late.

“It’s not anything that you can really negotiate away,” Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Chair Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said in an interview yesterday. “We either follow the science, or we condemn ourselves to higher costs and more catastrophes.”

The leaked document, which Manchin confirmed to reporters yesterday, inserted another twist into the ongoing fight in the House over the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It was initially scheduled for a vote yesterday, but progressives planned to sink it without a deal with Manchin and fellow moderate Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) on reconciliation. The vote was delayed after talks that dragged into yesterday evening.

The document includes several climate-related stipulations, namely that Manchin’s committee be charged with writing any clean energy standard and that if clean energy tax breaks are extended, fossil fuel tax benefits should be preserved.

Climate spending, it says, should be “fuel neutral,” and carbon capture and storage should allow natural gas and coal to “feasibly qualify” for energy tax policies. Manchin is also doubling down on his concerns with the CEPP, which he laid out in detail this week during an Energy and Natural Resources hearing (Greenwire, Sept. 28).

[italics added] A horde of Democrats should be big-time pissed-off by this. By both content of the document, and its genesis/reach/secrecy.

The big question, what did Biden know of this, when? If he left others hanging out to dry, what has he to say now? If he was not in the loop back then, Schumer keeping it from Biden disqualifies him from any further leadership role in the Senate, as untrustworthy. 

And Pelosi, same question, what did she know of it and when did she know?

Most of the good Democratic Party members appear to have been hung out to dry over this betrayal. Of the others, when did Clyburn first know of it, and what did he do?

Manchin should be confronted - cut the partner bill by whatever proportion the $3.5 trillion ends up cut; with West Virginia losing its perks. Or cut the playing-God crap out and accept reform. Do the damned job, Joe.

Particularly galling is the question of the fossil fuel flunky's position on climate change provisions, including funding and actions. He's looking at the future of generations - young people now able to vote, and generations yet to come; and Manchin is taking a dump on their future - or am I missing something in dealings?

Schumer, traitor is the term coming to mind, being a party to this document while seemingly letting Democratic colleagues in both houses left hanging out to dry.

Or is this some new power ploy to try to dislodge Jayapal and her voting bloc from insisting on $3.5 trillion in landmark legislation, after scaling back from initial $6 trillion of needed measures, making hard choices to get it down to half the desired amount?

Either way, it will take several days to sort out the fallout from Schumer's betrayal of everybody else besides Manchin. He is, so far, the one clear villain in these dealings. He knew. He let the thing fester and let rancor develop with no thought to how incensed people would be when learning he'd cut a backroom deal.

There should be a loud and clear demand for Schumer to step down from Senate leadership roles of any kind. The Republicans torpedoed Cheney for much less of an affront - exercising her right to vote Trump to be the bastard he's shown himself to be. Cheney did not hide anything for several months. Cheney did not backstab others, she simply voted as her conscience led her.

This story is expected to grow legs. Readers can monitor other outlets for future developments. However, the situation cried out for commentary, now, about impressions formed from initial mainstream media coverage.

___________UPDATE___________

Schumer and mendacity - Guardian reporting (not about the Manchin-Schumer "Agreement" per se, but to be read in light of it) --

A clutch of corporate lobby groups and organizations have mobilized to oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats, which contains unprecedented measures to drive down planet-heating gases. The reconciliation bill has been called the “the most significant climate action in our country’s history” by Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the US Senate.

It takes a special type of person to call a proposal a landmark bill, a "most significant climate action in our country's history," while sitting on a secret agreement to gut it, via agreeing to allow a fossil fuel hack to have committee authority to write the Senate version of such climate law. 

That kind and degree of special willingness is brazenly disrespectful toward the public Schumer was elected and is paid to serve. 

AOC should primary the man. He is ripe for a fall after pulling that stunt with Manchin and having the audacity to tout proposals he's agreed to substantially dismember. 

While at it, Manchin needs to be primaried too, but at least he's not cutting a back-room deal while singing praise for landmark climate legislation. Manchin is up front about what you see is what you get. Ugly. Yes, but honest about it.

Schumer weaseled big time. Go AOC! Retire the Senator, and gain a bigger paycheck along with a proportionally greater voice. Senator OC! It has a ring to it.

Different authors from different media outlets write about Joe Manchin.

 By publisher: Business Insider, The Intercept, Guardian, NYT, Vice, and The Conversation.

Not a pretty picture, but adding more can make it uglier.

With leaders like that why do we need petty thieves? Beyond that opinionated observation based on inference from circumstantial evidence, what's Manchin's basis for not wanting to see regular people get something of a better deal paid for via tax reform? Does he dislike tax reform?