click a pic
⬇︎
Oct 5, 2024
A Question
Q:
How did you go broke?
A:
Gradually at first, and then all of a sudden.
A guy like Trump - somebody with lots of charisma, and so devoid of honor and principles that he has total confidence in every horseshit thing he says - he's unbeatable. Until he isn't.
And we already know he can be beaten because Joe Biden did exactly that by getting 81 million of us up off the couch, and rallied us to a worthy cause - in the middle of a pandemic that was killing people by the thousands every day just because they got off that couch and mingled with a few others at the grocery store for 20 or 30 minutes.
Also, remember Biden nearly got his face torn off by a very aggressive Kamala Harris in the first debate in 2020 - which I think made her the obvious choice for VP (because Joe is kinda savvy like that), which put her in position to learn everything she needed to learn, and to learn it from a true master of the political arts.
Now we've got a trained and ready Kamala Harris at the head of a political coalition that runs from Bernie Sanders
- to AOC
- to Jasmine Crockett
- to Stanley McChristal
- to Bruce Springsteen
- to Magic Johnson
- to Jeff Flake
- to Taylor Swift
- to Christine Todd-Whitman
- to Chuck Hagel
- to Dick Cheney
Dick-fucking-Cheney!?!
So, god willin' and the crick don't rise, Trump is about to do what he's always done eventually - he's about to go broke.
Believe it or not, I'm not all giddy and shit - plenty of bad things can happen in the 30 days we have left before the election - but there's a shift happening.
The American Voter is an odd duck. Aggravating as hell, because sometimes we act like a bunch of high schoolers trying to make up our minds about Homecoming Queen, and should we go with the girl all our friends say they're voting for, or maybe we'll write in Betty Boop, or maybe we just turn up our noses because who wants to play this fuck-around game anyway?
All that said - feel the wave.
Be the wave.
But -
Don't get cocky.
Get together and do the work.
Send those fuckers packin'
Oct 4, 2024
The Rogues' Gallery
The special counsel’s filing that argues Trump isn’t immune from prosecution offered many details about his allies and advisers.
In attempting to convince a federal judge to allow prosecutors to move forward with their election interference case against Donald Trump, special counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday unspooled events that featured a diverse cast of characters in the president’s orbit in late 2020 and early 2021. Some were longtime Trump allies, some were outside lawyers hired to take on the legal issues, and some were state officials from around the country who the special counsel alleged were on the receiving end of Trump’s wrath as his efforts to subvert the election failed.
Few of the participants were named in Smith’s 165-page brief. Five alleged co-conspirators were identified only as CC1 through CC6. Others are listed as P1 through P77. But The Post was able to identify many of them through their job descriptions, or because the actions described match activity that already was public through media reports or a House committee’s investigation of the Jan. 6 attack.
The brief argues that all of their actions were “unofficial,” not related to Trump’s functions as president — critical, because of a Supreme Court ruling that gave him broad immunity from prosecution for official acts. It provides many behind-the-scenes looks into how the plan to reverse the election unfolded, and then collapsed.
Here are some of those key players:
Stephen K. Bannon
Stephen K. Bannon told a private gathering that “what Trump’s going to do is just declare victory,” which the president then did. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
The podcaster and longtime adviser to Trump joined the Trump campaign a month before the 2020 election. Prosecutors allege that shortly before Election Day, Bannon told a private gathering that “what Trump’s going to do is just declare victory.” Trump did that not long after the polls were closed.
After the election was called for Joe Biden, Bannon told another Trump supporter that he had recommended Trump fire his current lawyers and hire former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, because “if Giuliani was not in charge, this thing is over,” the prosecution brief alleges. Trump announced his changes the next day.
Prosecutors say that Trump and Bannon began having daily contact starting in mid-December 2020, and that Bannon’s podcast on Dec. 14 “focused on spreading lies about [Trump’s] fraudulent electors,” the scheme to submit a second set of electors from contested states such as Pennsylvania and Arizona to support Trump. The prosecutors argue that Bannon was using the podcast to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to stop the certification of Biden’s election.
Trump spoke to Bannon on Jan. 5, 2021, the prosecution filing alleges, followed by a podcast in which Bannon said “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” Later that night, Trump and Bannon spoke again, followed soon after by a public statement from Trump asserting that “the Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.” Trump knew that was false because Pence had repeatedly told him he did not have the authority to intervene, prosecutors allege.
Bannon’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani was surprised when conservative officials in Arizona stood behind their election results, according to Smith’s brief. (Sarah Silbiger for The Washington Post)
Much of Giuliani’s work on behalf of Trump happened publicly in front of cameras or in legislative hearings. But it was in closed-door meetings with Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere that he expected he would have success — and was surprised when conservative officials stood behind their election results, according to Smith’s brief.
In late November 2020, Trump and Giuliani called Rusty Bowers, then the speaker of the Arizona House, asking him to replace Arizona’s legitimate electors for Biden with illegitimate Trump electors, the brief states. Bowers was skeptical, and Giuliani told him, “We’re all kind of Republicans and we need to be working together,” the brief alleges. Bowers asked Giuliani for evidence of election fraud but never got any, it says.
Giuliani next tried his luck in Georgia, where he wielded the video of election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman inside State Farm Arena in Atlanta and argued they were committing fraud, according to the brief. Georgia officials told him there was no fraud, but Giuliani continued to criticize the two women publicly. They later sued him and were awarded a $148 million judgment.
Giuliani also spread false claims to legislators in Michigan and Pennsylvania, the brief says, and then became involved in the scheme to organize and submit slates of Trump electors in six states. On Dec. 10, he instructed another lawyer to send directions to the phony electors on “how best to mimic the manner” of valid electors, “along with fraudulent certificates of vote,” the government alleges.
On Jan. 6, Giuliani called senators after the Capitol riot and continued to urge them to delay the certification and to “object to every state,” according to a voicemail left for one senator described in the brief. He falsely claimed Pence’s refusal to intervene was surprising and that Trump needed more time for state legislatures to reverse their votes, the brief states.
Giuliani has been disbarred in New York and Washington for his actions in the case, and he has been indicted in Georgia and Arizona.
Responding to the filing, Giuliani spokesman Ted Goodman said: “This is blatant election interference by Jack Smith, a person with a long track record of weaponizing the law for political gain.”
John Eastman
Eastman, the former dean of the Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., is credited with helping devise the plan to submit a second set of electors from the contested states where Biden had been declared the victor. On Dec. 6, 2020, prosecutors allege, Eastman and Trump called Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chair, to help coordinate the actions of the illegitimate electors, which McDaniel agreed to do.
But prosecutors say Eastman deceived the illegitimate electors by telling McDaniel their votes would only be used if ongoing litigation was resolved in favor of Trump. Though Trump won no lawsuits, his supporters tried to use the fake electors’ votes on Jan. 6.
Eastman also outlined a plan on Dec. 23 for Pence to declare Trump the winner on Jan. 6, “because of the ongoing disputes” in the contested states, the brief states, and to do so without consulting Congress or the courts. Though Eastman had written two months earlier that the law did not allow that, he wrote another memo on Jan. 3, 2021, advocating for Pence to send elector slates back to their state legislatures, then later “conceded that no court would support it,” prosecutors allege.
Eastman spoke at the “Stop the Steal” rally on the Ellipse on Jan. 6, saying that Pence must return the electoral votes to the states, though he knew there was no legal basis for it, which prosecutors said served to spike the crowd’s anger. Later that night, after the Capitol riot had been quelled, Eastman emailed Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob and said “I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation” of the law and adjourn Congress for 10 days, according to the filing. Pence declined.
Eastman was subsequently disbarred in California, which he is appealing, and he faces state criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona. His lawyers did not return a request for comment.
Kenneth Chesebro
Kenneth Chesebro helped devise the plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, Smith's brief says. (Alyssa Pointer/Getty Images/Pool/AP)
Kenneth Chesebro is an attorney who helped devise the plan to reverse the 2020 results by having Republicans cast electoral votes for Trump in states he lost.
A day before electors in every state were to meet, Chesebro sent a memo to Giuliani arguing Pence could use fraudulent electoral votes to create the illusion that the election’s outcome was in doubt and push for negotiations that would result in Biden’s defeat, prosecutors allege.
On Dec. 16, 2020 — two days after the electors gathered — Chesebro and others met with Trump in the Oval Office, where Trump complained about a conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who had ruled against him, prosecutors allege. As the group left the meeting, Trump spoke privately with Chesebro, according to prosecutors.
Three days later, Trump urged his supporters to come to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 for a “wild” protest. Chesebro sent word of Trump’s tweet to James Troupis, a Trump attorney who participated in the Oval Office meeting with Chesebro. “Wow,” Chesebro wrote to Troupis, according to prosecutors’ filing. “Based on 3 days ago, I think we have unique understanding of this.”
Later, Chesebro hand-delivered copies of the paperwork for the would-be electors from Michigan and Wisconsin to congressional aides, prosecutors allege. On the morning of Jan. 6, Chesebro consulted with Troupis as Troupis tried to get the paperwork into the hands of Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) so he could pass it on to Pence, according to Wednesday’s filing and other documents. The idea fizzled when an aide to Pence said he wouldn’t accept the paperwork.
Chesebro, who has not been charged in the federal case, pleaded guilty in 2023 to conspiring to file false documents in a Georgia case over the attempt to overturn the election. He faces separate charges of conspiring to commit forgery in Wisconsin over his election activities in that state. He has not had to enter a plea in that case.
Chesebro did not respond to a request for comment.
Doug Ducey
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey asked for President Donald Trump to produce evidence of voter fraud. It never arrived. (Susan Walsh/AP)
As the Arizona governor in 2020, Doug Ducey (R) played a key role in certifying the election results in a state that Trump had lost by a mere 10,457 votes. Unlike other Republicans around the nation, Ducey has publicly downplayed his private interactions with the former president and his allies after the 2020 election.
In the days after the election, after Fox News projected Trump’s loss, the president called Ducey to ask what was happening with vote counting in the swing state, according to the filing. Ducey walked Trump through the number of votes that still needed to be counted and described to the president that he was in “the ninth inning, two outs” and that Trump “was several runs down,” prosecutors allege in the filing. Trump raised claims of “election fraud” and the governor asked him to send evidence, the filing says.
“We’re packaging it up,” Trump replied, according to the filing. The evidence did not arrive, and Trump and his allies continued to exert pressure on the governor, the filing says.
On Nov. 30, 2020, the same day the governor signed the state’s certificate of ascertainment formally declaring Biden’s electors as the rightful electors for the state, he got a call from Trump and Pence, the filing alleges. The governor told them he had certified the election. Trump again brought up his claims of fraud; Ducey again asked to see the evidence, according to the filing.
The evidence never arrived, prosecutors allege, and Trump later attacked the governor publicly. A spokesperson for Ducey did not immediately comment on the filing.
Chris Carr
Much of the attention devoted to Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat in Georgia has focused on his public pressure campaign on two top Republicans in the state: Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. But Smith’s filing calls attention to a phone call Trump made to a third high-ranking Republican: Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, who is identified as P26 in the redacted court brief.
According to federal prosecutors, Trump called Carr on Dec. 8, 2020, about a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out election results in Georgia and three other key states on claims of fraud. The brief says Carr was warned ahead of time by Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) that Trump had heard Carr was “whipping,” or lobbying, other state attorneys general against filing amicus briefs in support of the lawsuit.
“I hope you’re not talking to your AGs and encouraging them not to get on the lawsuit,” Trump allegedly told Carr on the call, according to Smith’s filing.
Carr told Trump he was not calling other AGs, but if they did call, he told them he wasn’t seeing evidence of election fraud in Georgia, according to the brief. Trump allegedly told Carr to check again “because we’re running out of time,” the brief states.
Prosecutors say Carr tried to get off the phone by “thanking” Trump and telling him he’d voted for him twice and “appreciated” him. “Yeah, I did a hell of a job, didn’t I?” Trump allegedly replied.
Mike Roman
Mike Roman served as the director of Election Day operations for Trump’s 2020 campaign and played a role in having Republicans meet as presidential electors in states Trump lost. He and others on Trump’s team sought to spread confusion as votes were being counted in Detroit, according to Wednesday’s filing.
When a colleague told him a batch of votes heavily favoring Biden were valid, Roman texted “find a reason it isnt” and asked for litigation options, according to the filing. When the colleague said the scene at the counting center could develop into something akin to the “Brooks Brothers riot” from the 2000 election in Florida, Roman responded, “Make them riot,” prosecutors allege.
In December 2020, as Trump’s campaign was urging Republicans to meet as electors in states he lost, Roman bemoaned that Pennsylvania Republicans had grown “squishy,” the filing alleges.
“Whoever selected this slate should be shot,” he wrote to a colleague, according to the filing. The Pennsylvania Republicans added caveats to their paperwork that said they should be considered electors only if a court made such a finding. That prospect raised concerns from Roman, who told a colleague, “if it gets out we changed the language for PA it could snowball,” according to the court filing.
Roman is not charged or listed as a co-conspirator in the federal case but he is separately being prosecuted in three states for his election activities.
He faces conspiracy and other charges in Arizona; racketeering and other charges in Georgia; and conspiracy to commit forgery in Wisconsin. He has pleaded not guilty in Arizona and Georgia and has not had to enter a plea yet in Wisconsin. An attorney for him was not immediately available.
Eric Herschmann
Eric Herschmann represented Trump in his first impeachment and started working in the White House in August 2020. He served as a liaison between Trump and his campaign, passing on information and repeatedly alerting him that the campaign’s theories about voting fraud were bunk.
Trump disregarded the warnings, according to prosecutors. When Herschmann told Trump that Giuliani couldn’t prove claims of fraud in court, Trump responded, “The details don’t matter,” according to Wednesday’s filing.
On Jan. 4, 2021, Herschmann went over one of Eastman’s memos with him line by line, and Eastman acknowledged no court would agree with him, according to prosecutors. Herschmann told Trump of Eastman’s admission, and Trump said “Other people disagree” without saying who those people were, according to prosecutors.
Herschmann later told congressional investigators that he told Eastman to “get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You’re going to need it.”
Herschmann did not respond to a request for comment.
Sidney Powell
A onetime federal prosecutor turned private attorney, Sidney Powell filed lawsuits challenging the outcomes in multiple states after the 2020 election. On Nov. 14, 2020, as Trump and co-conspirators espoused false claims about the security and accuracy of voting machines in various states, Trump announced that she would assist his campaign’s legal efforts, according to the filing.
Days later, in response to a document critical of vote-counting machines that was shared with her on the president’s behalf, she responded that the information “MUST GO IN ALL SUITS IN GA AND PA IMMEDIATELY WITH A FRAUD CLAIM THAT REQUIRES THE ENTIRE ELECTION TO BE SET ASIDE in those states and machines impounded for non-partisan professional inspection,” according to the filing.
Powell took part in a Nov. 19 news conference on behalf of Trump and his campaign at the Republican National Committee headquarters, where she “made false and factually impossible claims” about the nation’s election infrastructure, the filing alleges. After Trump saw the news conference, he said that Powell had appeared “unhinged,” the filing says.
On Nov. 20, Trump had a call with Powell on speakerphone while Dan Scavino and Hope Hicks listened, according to the filing. When Trump mentioned a segment from Fox News that described how Powell did not produce evidence of her claims to them, Trump put the call on mute, deriding her claims as “crazy,” the filing alleges.
When Trump was told by an attorney that the claims were unreliable and should not be included in litigation, Trump agreed, saying he had seen nothing to substantiate Powell’s allegations, according to the filing. Though Trump distanced himself from her, he continued to publicly support her claims, the filing alleges.
Boris Epshteyn
Boris Epshteyn, a Republican strategist, lawyer and top Trump adviser, has been a steady fixture at the former president’s side, dating back to when he began acting as a surrogate for Trump’s 2016 campaign. In April, Epshteyn was among more than a dozen Trump allies indicted in Arizona on charges tied to alleged efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in that state. The charges stem from Epshteyn’s alleged role overseeing a plan to use pro-Trump electors to overturn Biden’s victory in key battleground states. Epshteyn has pleaded not guilty to nine felony charges. Smith’s redacted brief sheds some additional light on the role Epshteyn allegedly played.
Identified as CC6, Epshteyn is mentioned more than 30 times in the document — allegedly joining Giuliani, then Trump’s personal attorney, in advising Trump on the morning of Nov. 4, 2020, to “just declare victory,” according to the brief, even as the outcome of the election remained uncertain. The brief pointedly describes Epshteyn as one of the “private political operatives” advising Trump — not one of his private attorneys or other legal advisers.
Epshteyn did not respond to a request for comment.
Prosecutors put Epshteyn at the center of executing what the brief calls the Trump elector “conspiracy,” coordinating with campaign staff and lawyers including Giuliani, Eastman and Chesebro.” It cites a January 2021 text thread between Epshteyn and Chesebro as evidence of how “conspirators attempted to keep the full nature of the fraudulent elector plan secret.”
In the thread, Epshteyn tells Chesebro, “Careful with your texts on text groups” and tells the lawyer to only communicate with him and Eastman about the elector plan. “I’m probably a bit paranoid,” Epshteyn wrote, according to the brief. “A valuable trait,” Chesebro responded.
Biden Didn't Do That
... except where he did.
Then in a surprising move, as the call was wrapping up, Zients told the board members of the U.S. Maritime Alliance that he was going to tell Biden in about an hour that they had agreed to propose a new offer to the union. By that point, the shipping executives had agreed to do no such thing. Zients was saying they would.
U.S. employers added 254,000 jobs and the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 percent in September, signaling signs of strength in the labor market heading into the height of the election season.
The last several months of steady job growth have been plenty enough to keep the American labor market firmly out of recession territory, economists say, especially as GDP growth remains hardy, productivity is strong and consumers continue to spend.
How Biden helped end a port strike that threatened Democrats in November
With early morning Zoom calls and a surprising ultimatum, the White House brain trust averted a potential economic disaster weeks before the election.
It was a stark ultimatum, delivered by President Joe Biden’s most senior aide.
At 5:30 a.m. Thursday, before the sun had risen above his Washington home, White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients was on a Zoom call with two Cabinet secretaries and the executives of the shipping companies negotiating with workers who had gone on strike at critical docks along the East and Gulf coasts, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
Then in a surprising move, as the call was wrapping up, Zients told the board members of the U.S. Maritime Alliance that he was going to tell Biden in about an hour that they had agreed to propose a new offer to the union. By that point, the shipping executives had agreed to do no such thing. Zients was saying they would.
- and -
Employers added 254,000 jobs in September, reflecting strong gains as election nears
The U.S. unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 percent.
U.S. employers added 254,000 jobs and the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 percent in September, signaling signs of strength in the labor market heading into the height of the election season.
The last several months of steady job growth have been plenty enough to keep the American labor market firmly out of recession territory, economists say, especially as GDP growth remains hardy, productivity is strong and consumers continue to spend.
It should be telling that every time there's good news about the American economy, the Republicans get a sad.
And BTW - Harris has been gaining on Trump in the polls that try to gauge how we feel and what we think about the economy.
The next few days might tell us a very interesting story.
The Scope Of The Victory
It's on us. We have to deliver a win for Harris & Walz that - at the very least - can be spun as if it's the biggest thing since Reagan in '84.
And we have to gear up to watch what goes on around the polling places, and then what's happening from Nov 6 thru Jan 20.
This is a big lift. We need as many of us as possible.
Many hands make for light work.
Because Trump's goons are already going after the process, and they'll continue tearing at it until they put his blobby orange ass in the Oval Office again, or until we stomp them into a small greasy stain on the sidewalk (metaphorically, if at all possible - otherwise if necessary - don't fuck with me, MAGA).
We've pulled off 58 inaugurations in a row - from 1789 thru 2021. Let's not let some gang of lowlife political vandals fuck up the streak.
Cold Comfort
If the Press Poodles bring it up at all, I'm sure the spinmeisters will handle it with something like, "See? We can all agree to disagree, and disagree without being disagreeable."
Melania Trump Says Women Should Be Able to Make Their Own Decisions About Abortion, a Right Her Husband Helped Take Away From Millions
She claims she “privately” addressed her views with her spouse, believing that was the better route that “publicly challenging” him.
Melania Trump has a memoir out later this month that Donald Trump has told supporters he was too busy to read. So it may come as a surprise to him that his wife wrote about how she’s apparently passionately pro-choice, and believes women should be able to obtain abortions any time they want—a right the ex-president took away from millions of people.
According to the Guardian, which obtained a copy of Melania ahead of its release next week, the former first lady says in her book: “It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government. Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes. Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.” And she doesn’t stop there.
“It’s a very straightforward concept,” Melania continues. “In fact, we are all born with a set of fundamental rights, including the right to enjoy our lives. We are all entitled to maintain a gratifying and dignified existence. This common-sense approach applies to a woman’s natural right to make decisions about her own body and health.”
Wondering if the former first lady believes there should be a cutoff point as to when a person can no longer obtain an abortion, as her husband’s running mate declared during the vice-presidential debate this week? She does not. “It is important to note that historically, most abortions conducted during the later stages of pregnancy were the result of severe fetal abnormalities that probably would have led to the death or stillbirth of the child,” she says. “Perhaps even the death of the mother. These cases were extremely rare and typically occurred after several consultations between the woman and her doctor.” She also writes that while she is “in favor of the requirement that juveniles obtain parental consent before undergoing an abortion,” she “realize[s] this may not always be possible.“
The former first lady’s views on abortion are, of course, wildly out of step with those of her husband and his Republican brethren. While running for office in 2016, Trump vowed to exclusively nominate Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade; after that happened in June 2022, he bragged about killing the national right to an abortion and has not stopped bragging about it in the years since. While he defends his actions as simply sending the matter back to the “states” to decide, the overturning of Roe led to extreme or total abortion bans in numerous states, where some women have died as a result. Meanwhile, the ex-president regularly lies about abortion, claiming Democrats support “executing” babies after they are born. His running mate, JD Vance has previously called for a national abortion ban, and it is not at all out of the realm of possibility that one could go into effect in a second Trump administration, despite misleading claims to the contrary.
Touching on their opposing beliefs, Melania writes: “Occasional political disagreements between me and my husband...[are] part of our relationship, but I believed in addressing them privately rather than publicly challenging him.” Which, obviously, is pretty unfortunate for the many people who have been stripped of their reproductive rights thanks to Trump’s handiwork.
Why are we hearing about the former first lady’s views on abortion now, eight years after her spouse first ran for president? Abortion rights advocate Jessica Valenti has an idea:
It’s not a coincidence that her supposed full-throated support is being leaked right before the election....This woman has been complicit in her husband’s nightmare reign and bigotry, and now she wants to help put a glossy, softened sheen on his anti-abortion extremism. This is about covering up and distracting from how dangerous a Trump administration would be for women.
Which, if it’s not already abundantly clear, would be Handmaid’s Tale–level dangerous. On the bright side, anyone dying in a parking lot as a result of Trump’s Supreme Court nominations can take comfort in the fact that Melania “privately” complained to her husband.
I'll go farther out on the limb, and say this could easily be another way to create confusion and chaos - to distract some of us, while making others feel a little better about how maybe Trump isn't all that bad after all.
I can hate my cynicism, and still be glad of it because it serves to keep me on my toes.
None of it changes my thinking that Republicans are manipulative assholes who pet, and coo, and soothe - as they gently force the knife into the body politic's heart.
She claims she “privately” addressed her views with her spouse, believing that was the better route that “publicly challenging” him.
Melania Trump has a memoir out later this month that Donald Trump has told supporters he was too busy to read. So it may come as a surprise to him that his wife wrote about how she’s apparently passionately pro-choice, and believes women should be able to obtain abortions any time they want—a right the ex-president took away from millions of people.
According to the Guardian, which obtained a copy of Melania ahead of its release next week, the former first lady says in her book: “It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government. Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes. Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.” And she doesn’t stop there.
“It’s a very straightforward concept,” Melania continues. “In fact, we are all born with a set of fundamental rights, including the right to enjoy our lives. We are all entitled to maintain a gratifying and dignified existence. This common-sense approach applies to a woman’s natural right to make decisions about her own body and health.”
Wondering if the former first lady believes there should be a cutoff point as to when a person can no longer obtain an abortion, as her husband’s running mate declared during the vice-presidential debate this week? She does not. “It is important to note that historically, most abortions conducted during the later stages of pregnancy were the result of severe fetal abnormalities that probably would have led to the death or stillbirth of the child,” she says. “Perhaps even the death of the mother. These cases were extremely rare and typically occurred after several consultations between the woman and her doctor.” She also writes that while she is “in favor of the requirement that juveniles obtain parental consent before undergoing an abortion,” she “realize[s] this may not always be possible.“
The former first lady’s views on abortion are, of course, wildly out of step with those of her husband and his Republican brethren. While running for office in 2016, Trump vowed to exclusively nominate Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade; after that happened in June 2022, he bragged about killing the national right to an abortion and has not stopped bragging about it in the years since. While he defends his actions as simply sending the matter back to the “states” to decide, the overturning of Roe led to extreme or total abortion bans in numerous states, where some women have died as a result. Meanwhile, the ex-president regularly lies about abortion, claiming Democrats support “executing” babies after they are born. His running mate, JD Vance has previously called for a national abortion ban, and it is not at all out of the realm of possibility that one could go into effect in a second Trump administration, despite misleading claims to the contrary.
Touching on their opposing beliefs, Melania writes: “Occasional political disagreements between me and my husband...[are] part of our relationship, but I believed in addressing them privately rather than publicly challenging him.” Which, obviously, is pretty unfortunate for the many people who have been stripped of their reproductive rights thanks to Trump’s handiwork.
Why are we hearing about the former first lady’s views on abortion now, eight years after her spouse first ran for president? Abortion rights advocate Jessica Valenti has an idea:
It’s not a coincidence that her supposed full-throated support is being leaked right before the election....This woman has been complicit in her husband’s nightmare reign and bigotry, and now she wants to help put a glossy, softened sheen on his anti-abortion extremism. This is about covering up and distracting from how dangerous a Trump administration would be for women.
Which, if it’s not already abundantly clear, would be Handmaid’s Tale–level dangerous. On the bright side, anyone dying in a parking lot as a result of Trump’s Supreme Court nominations can take comfort in the fact that Melania “privately” complained to her husband.
Oct 3, 2024
Go Judge Go
District Judge Matthew Barrett roasted Tina Peters at her sentencing hearing.
9 years in the big house, and many thousands in fines.
Judge Barrett:
“You are no hero. You abused your position – and you’re a charlatan who used, and is still using your prior position to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again. Your lies are well-documented and these convictions are serious. I’m convinced you’d do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant a defendant as this court has ever seen.”
Tina Peters was the county clerk (Mesa Cnty) in western Colorado who started criming and just couldn't stop herself.
She's headed for the Colorado State Penitentiary in Cañon City.
It's a bit long - Barrett had a lot to slam her with.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)