Read Robert Hubbell on the latest news. Always a voice of reason. It arrived at 2:17 am, when I was sleeping. I will have to remember his last lines the next time some Trump partisan accuses me of being “hyper partisan.” I am not at all partisan. I fear Trump. He is vicious, ignorant, dangerous. He lies the way other people exhale. Constantly. He inspired a coup attempt once. He would do it again. He faces 91 criminal counts for his actions. Why should anyone vote for this corrupt man? As I wrote yesterday, I would vote for an artichoke—or my dog Mitzi—if that was the choice. I am not blindly loyal to the Democratic Party or to Biden. I am terrified of the return of this unhinged demagogue.
Hubbell wrote:
As the media continues its journalistic rapture over special counsel Robert Hur’s hit job on Joe Biden, Trump gave the “green light” for Putin to attack NATO if Trump is elected in 2024. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the NYTimes to run five front-page stories on Trump’s reckless statement. I will return to the coverage of Robert Hur’s report in a moment, but the more important story (by far) is Trump’s dangerous invitation to Putin to invade NATO allies.
First, a reminder about our forward-leaning stance. As I said, on Friday, we must go on offense. Joe Biden is the better candidate by orders of magnitude. The choice has never been clearer in the history of our nation. We need to be aggressive in making that point. Trump’s statement over the weekend reinforces the binary choice between democracy and tyranny, sanity and chaos, and decency and depravity.
Trump claims he told NATO ally he would welcome Russian attack.
What happened.
At a rally over the weekend, Trump recounted the following conversation with a leader of a NATO ally:
One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’
You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.
Why it matters.
It matters for three reasons, at least.
First, The story is a fabrication. Trump is a liar (as we know). No president of a “big country” posed the question to Trump, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay . . . .” If Trump had been asked such a question and given the response he recounted during a NATO meeting, we would have heard about it long before a campaign rally in South Carolina in 2024. (Moreover, NATO countries don’t “pay” anyone for membership in NATO. Trump thinks NATO has dues like a country club. It doesn’t. Instead, each member nation agrees to spend a certain percentage of its budget on its own military.)
Second, even though the story is not true as recounted, it is a signal to Putin that Trump’s commitment to NATO is illusory. Trump’s submissive posture regarding Russia threatens international security—and endangers the lives of Americans who will respond to a Russian attack on NATO.
Indeed, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg made that point, saying,
Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election, the US will remain a strong and committed NATO ally.
Third, the statement is a reminder of Trump’s wild unpredictability when making public comments. He is a reckless madman. He is unfit to be president.
The reaction.
Trump’s imaginary (but reckless) story was rightly condemned by most major media. The NYTimes led with three front-page stories about the Trump’s statement.
- Favoring Foes Over Friends, Trump Threatens to Upend International Order.
- An Outburst by Trump on NATO May Push Europe to Go It Alone
- Trump draws fire for his comments on NATO and Russia
The Washington Post led with a top-of-page headline, “Trump’s NATO-bashing comments rile allies, rekindle European fears.”
The Wall Street Journal included a below-the-fold front page headline, NATO Leader Blasts Trump’s Suggestion He Would Encourage Russian Invasion of U.S. Allies.
But, as expected, leading Republicans excused Trump’s reckless statement. Senator Marco Rubio said,
He doesn’t talk like a traditional politician, and we’ve already been through this. You would think people would’ve figured it out by now.
The excuse that “he doesn’t talk like a politician” doesn’t change how our NATO allies feel about Trump’s invitation to Putin to invade NATO countries. They would rightly make strategic decisions based on what Trump says without discounting his statement by his unpredictability.
More to the point, Trump doesn’t “talk” like an adult. He speaks like a petulant child with no emotional control. He is unfit to be president.
Speaking of Trump talking like a petulant child, read on!
Trump mocks Nikki Haley’s husband, who is deployed with the National Guard in Africa.
During the same speech in South Carolina, Trump insulted Nikki Haley’s husband, Michael Haley, who is a Major in the National Guard. His unit is currently on a year-long deployment in the Horn of Africa. Trump said,
What happened to her husband? Where is he? He’s gone. He knew. He knew.
Trump’s comment suggested that Major Michael Haley was out of the country to avoid seeing Nikki Haley’s loss in the Republican South Carolina primary. Of course, Trump’s mocking of Major Haley’s service is an insult to all Americans who serve their country in the military.
Nikki Haley condemned Trump’s remarks, saying,
Michael is deployed serving our country, something you know nothing about. Someone who continually disrespects the sacrifices of military families has no business being commander in chief.
President Biden also condemned Trump’s comments:
The answer is that Major Haley is abroad, serving his country right now. We know [Trump] thinks our troops are ‘suckers,’ but this guy wouldn’t know service to his country if it slapped him in the face.”
Of course—on cue—Senator Marco Rubio declined to criticize Trump’s comments about Major Haley’s year-long deployment to Africa.
Every time Trump speaks at a campaign rally, he creates this type of controversy. While his committed base and paid apologists are not moved, some voters will be. Military families, active-duty personnel, and veterans will understand the sacrifice that Major Haley is making—and Trump is mocking….
I am confident that the Biden campaign will get past the special counsel’s slander. Why? Because as the candidates make hundreds of campaign appearances, Biden’s mental fitness will compare favorably to Trump’s. Moreover, as the South Carolina rally on Saturday demonstrated, Trump will make outrageous statements every time he speaks. He will continue to do so—and will become more extreme as the campaign wears on. Joe Biden’s campaign operation is hammering Trump daily—and it is setting Trump’s fragile ego aflame.
Meanwhile, we must keep the faith. Hur’s report has shaken some readers. I received about a dozen “I give up emails” over the weekend. While I understand feelings of anxiety, we can’t give up or collapse in defeatism. Instead, we must take a cue from Republicans: They suffer body blows each week inflicted by the bizarre behavior of the most corrupt and dangerous candidate in our nation’s history, but they continue their support for him unabated.
We are in a significantly stronger position with a good and decent man who has been a successful president. Surely, Joe Biden deserves the same fierce loyalty Republicans give to Trump.
Finally, to be blunt, this fight isn’t about Joe Biden. Today, a reader sent an email criticizing me for showing “unmitigated support” for Joe Biden. I told him that he was mistaken. I am showing unqualified support for democracy.
At this moment in our history, supporting democracy means doing absolutely everything we can to re-elect Joe Biden. His gaffes and mistakes and age matter not a whit. He is a surrogate for democracy. If you aren’t supporting Joe Biden with every ounce of will you can muster, you are failing our democracy in its hour of need. It’s that simple.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The suggestion that one or more of the allies would not defend the others undermines the very reason why NATO is so powerful a deterrent. It is a critical blow to the very foundation of NATO.
Trump is both an idiot and a traitor. He cannot become president again. The courts need to put him in prison, right now, where he belongs.
LikeLike
Trump is a stupid man. I mean, this is the village idiot-level stupid.
And so, of course, his lies all have tells. One is this: anyone who ever talks to him in his self-aggrandizing, totally fabricated stories starts with, “Sir,” like this:
“So, this guy comes up and he says to me, ‘You know, Sir, [There’s your little made-up story buzzer] I was wondering how you do it, put up with all the fake news media. It’s not just genius with you–and you’ve got so much genius you must get tired of all that genius. (You know my uncle was a professor at MIT. Smartest guy in the history of the place. Practically ran it)–it’s not just genius; it’s also patience.’ And I said to him, to this guy, ‘Just you wait. I don’t have any patience anymore. I’m out. Fresh out of patience. And you’ll see. It’s not going to be pretty. I say we round up all the Marxists, in the media, in Congress, am I right? Am I right? And then, well. You know what they deserve. You know. Don’t you. Big league.'”
LikeLike
Think about those who would vote for this vile creature
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a source of great sadness to me. I have been forced to conclude that at least 35 percent of my fellow Americans are loathsome morons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On there bright side, it could be worse, Diane.
LikeLike
I’m trying to think of what could be worse than a Presidential candidate encouraging a voracious dictator to attack one of our allies.
LikeLike
Trump claims to have taken an IQ test. Has he taken a sanity test?
LikeLike
@diane — It sort of goes like this…”IQ, yes I am the smartest person in the world…but wait, I was on GQ, lovely, just lovely…most handsome man…they loved me…kept my sanity…that reminds me of tea, oh, that’s just brown water from China…the virus…”Hong Kong Virus” oh, and on the Grammy’s that Miley Cyrus…flowers, aren’t flowers wonderful when you get them…but sometimes those flowers are laced with bad, very bad things…and thats’ why the florists…wait, errr, Marxists will never win…and oh, they will change the name of Pennsylvania…”
LikeLike
Yup. That’s him.
LikeLike
@diane — This is on point. Worth the watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj5z7On2DHg
LikeLike
ROFL
LikeLike
This alone should disqualify him for the office.
But the larger picture is that Trump has been a Russian asset for a long, long time. And bizarrely, he has now dragged an entire American political party along with him into treasonous territory.
LikeLike
The operative term is “Useful Idiot”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Surely, Joe Biden deserves the same fierce loyalty Republicans give to Trump.”
Loyalty, in a democracy, does not mean blind obedience and hero worship. It does not mean ignoring one’s candidate’s or leader’s faults. It does not mean utter acquiescence to anything the candidate or leader does or says that he will do. It does not mean participating in a cult of personality. That’s what it means in places like North Korea and Russia. That’s what it means to Repugnicans under Glorious Leader Trump.
That’s no model for us to follow.
LikeLike
Bob,
Biden will never get the same fierce loyalty that Trump gets because he’s not a cult leader or a demagogue.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
amen
LikeLike
Hur went beyond what he was supposed to report. I wonder WHY? Did he get paid? Was he threatened? Maybe BOTH?
When I read the Hur report I thought, “HUH?” when he wrote about Biden’s memory. In fact, all Hur did was piss me off and wonder if he’s just another “bozo arm” of that dumpster trying to scramble people’s minds. There are days when I get up and think, “What’s the date?” No, I am not senile.
Trump is WORSE than STUPID and IMMORAL. He’s a total LIAR. That Dump IS an AGENT of Putin. Pity this country if that dumpster is elected. And BTW, I personally think that the only reason he is running for potus is to stay out of jail for the many crimes he’s committed and to FEED his warped ego.
I agree with Bob Shepherd and Diane Ravitch re: THAT DUMP, who in my opinion is “The worst POTUS EVER” and who works for Putin. Wonder what Putin is giving that DUMP to “take down” democracy in America? Dump only does things for SICK rewards. Maybe Dump didn’t get enough “stickers” and “smiley faces” when he was in school.
I wonder what books that dump reads. Hahahaha…like he reads…NOPE. Oh forgot, he has Mein Kampf.
And then there’s this: GOP congressman quotes Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ to slam Trump’s adversaries as liars. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/26/gop-congressman-quotes-hitlers-mein-kampf-slam-trumps-adversaries-liars/
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the Hartmann Report:
https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-and-his-traitors-to-democracy?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=302288&post_id=141588670&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=3lis4&utm_medium=email
“America is now a battlefield in an epochal war between the forces of democracy and fascist autocracy. Much of the warfare is happening in cyberspace, and in some cases is even being assisted by the rightwing billionaires who own our largest social media companies.”
LikeLike
“Trump thinks NATO has dues like a country club. It doesn’t.”
Trump has no control over the money NATO members contribute. That’s what irks him. At his country club, he collects the dues.
Anyone who thinks Biden is enfeebled needs to read Heather Cox Richardson’s summary of how Biden has created new networks among other nations to preserve the international order that has held since the end of WWII. I might say, to restore what Trump began to tear down during his four years of presidenting – a sideline to his various scams and schemes.
…But they were concerned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) might stand in their way. Formed in 1947 to stand against Soviet expansion and now standing against Russian aggression, NATO is a collective security alliance of 31 states that have agreed to consider an attack on any member to be an attack on all.
In exchange for weakening NATO, undermining the U.S. stance in favor of Ukraine in its attempt to throw off the Russians who had invaded in 2014, and removing U.S. sanctions from Russian entities, Russian operatives were willing to put their finger on the scales to help Trump win the White House…
Historically, though, the U.S. drive to spread democracy has often failed to rise above the old system of colonialism, with the U.S. and other western countries dictating to less prosperous countries. The administration has tried to avoid this trap by advancing a new form of international cooperation that creates partnerships and alignments of interested countries to solve discrete issues. These interest-based alignments, which administration officials refer to as “diplomatic variable geometry,” promise to preserve U.S. global influence and perhaps an international rules-based order but will also mean alliances with nations whose own interests align with those of the U.S. only on certain issues.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-10-2024
You cannot be a student of Latin America history and fail to be encouraged by an approach to other nations that doesn’t reiterate Uncle Sam with a big stick in our “backyard” and other examples of Manifest Destiny or the Monroe Doctrine. This is integrated, careful, respectful foreign policy.
LikeLike
This kept coming to mind, “The Sound of Thunder.” And, I wasn’t crazy. Good short read. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/13/1538120/-Ray-Bradbury-predicted-Donald-Trump
LikeLike
Rick, brilliant!! I read that story so long ago that I forgot it. My memory!! Bad!!
LikeLike
The diatribe of Marco Rubio is further evidence that the Republican Party is completely lost and not just to Trump. We are facing a significant movement of white nationalists that don’t want to be American anymore. I just attended a session that described violence as an “expression of needs unmet.” There’s a lot of that going around and the road ahead is bumpy indeed.
LikeLike
Before I start my rant, do not forget that Traitor Trump wanted to nuke a hurricane and had to be talked out of it be people that have brains and knowledge about what would have happened. The Traitor also thought he could change the course of a hurricane with a Sharpie.
While almost every NATO country pays into that alliance, even those that are under the 2% GDP, are close, within a 10th of one percent.
When always lying, backstabbing, fascist Traitor Trump said, “In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” (with NATO countries Trump will lie and claim are not paying into the NATO defense fund — yes, Trump will lie. That’s all he seems to have a talent for, lying. And he isn’t even a good liar, because he gets caught every time).
The Traitor, who is less than human, even rats and cockroaches are better than Trump on every scale, this subhuman is so ignorant he doesn’t realize that if Putin did what he wants to Europe, he’d nuke the EU, then send his troops in.
But the UK and France also have nuclear weapons, about 515, more than China.
https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals
“Some of France’s nuclear weapons are carried by fighter bombers, but the most important wing is carried by the French Navy’s four Triomphant-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, one of which is always on patrol.”
“The first British Trident missile was test-fired from Vanguard on 26 May 1994, and she began her first patrol in December of that year. According to the Royal Navy, at least one submarine has always been on patrol ever since.”
If Putin started a nuclear WWIII, rational people already know what Traitor Trump would be doing if he was president again. Before it even started, because he’d already know what Putin was going to do, he’d turn on FOX fake NEWS to watch Putin conquer the world. Unless Putin already made a deal with Trump dividing up the world between China, Russia and Trumpistan.
In a couple of hours, most of the EU would be gone but Russia would vanish as a country.
“Warheads. The Trident II can be loaded with up to eight Mk-5 RVs with 475-kt W88 warheads, up to fourteen Mk-4A RVs with 90-kt W76-1 warheads, and up to fourteen Mk-4A RVs with 5–7-kt W76-2 warheads.”
How many major cities does Russia have? The UK and EU has a population of about 500,000,000 people. Russia has about 143 million.
“Of Russia’s roughly 143 million inhabitants, the largest numbers concentrated in single cities live in Moscow with its 12.05 million residents. St. Petersburg has 5.19 million, Novosibirsk has 1.57 million, Yekaterinburg 1.43 million, NizniJ Novgorod 1.27 million, Kazan 1.21 million, Cel’ abinsk 1.18 million, Samara and Omsk 1.17 million house each, and Rostov-na-Donu has 1.11. Russia has 1,100 towns and cities in 46 provinces.”
LikeLike
JD Vance and Elise Stefanik are vying to be Trump’s VP. Neither is fit to be president.
If blog readers watched the Super Bowl ads, they may have seen right wing religion’s demand to be considered humane when it’s not. The, “He Gets Us,” ad is from Hobby Lobby’s protestant, right wing religion, guy and, the related ad for the Hallow App is from right wing, Catholic Sen. JD Vance who is attempting to end aid for Ukraine, in other words, helping Putin achieve his goals.
LikeLike
“Surely, Joe Biden deserves the same fierce loyalty Republicans give to Trump.”
I understood the point that Robert Hubbell was trying to make, but after reading some of the comments about “loyalty” here, perhaps readers would understand this better if Hubbell had written: “Surely, Joe Biden deserves the same fierce loyalty progressives give to Bernie Sanders.”
“Loyalty”, when exhibited by progressive Bernie Sanders’ supporters, isn’t characterized as blind obedience to Bernie or hero worship. It doesn’t mean that Bernie’s loyal supporters blindly ignore Bernie’s missteps and utterly acquiesce to whatever Bernie says.
Loyalty means that they fiercely defend Bernie from false narratives about true facts instead of legitimizing and amplifying those false narratives in the name of “truth”.
Here is an example. It is a true fact that Bernie Sanders’ stepson was paid $100,000 by the Sanders institute for a job he wasn’t really the best qualified to have. It is a true fact that Bernie’s wife got an extraordinarily generous severance package for running a small Burlington college into bankruptcy and closure. But the FALSE narrative is that those true facts raise very serious concerns about Bernie’s integrity and trustworthiness. The FALSE narrative is that if Bernie supporters want to be “truthful”, they must always talk about how these facts raise very serious questions about Bernie’s integrity.
Bernie’s supporters are “loyal” because they don’t confuse true facts with false narratives. Therefore, you would virtually never hear a Bernie supporter say this: “Bernie’s family getting rich from his connections raises serious concerns about Bernie’s trustworthiness and integrity. I am very concerned that many voters will decide that they won’t vote for Bernie because of the very serious questions these true facts raise about Bernie’s integrity and whether Bernie is trustworthy. My preference would be for Bernie to pull out so a better, more trustworthy candidate with more integrity can replace him, since many voters will be worried he isn’t trustworthy. But if Bernie does end up being the candidate, I’ll vote for him because at least he’s better than Trump.”
Bernie supporters don’t amplify false narratives about Bernie. They don’t act as useful idiots who pride themselves in their “honesty” when the amplify and legitimize DIShonest narratives that make Bernie look very untrustworthy. There weren’t dozens of articles about how “Even Bernie Sanders’ supporters are concerned about his honesty and integrity, because of the very serious issues raised by Bernie’s family getting enriched by their connections.”
Treat Biden the same way.
Biden is old. Nothing wrong with saying Biden is old. Nothing wrong with saying Biden is slowing down from his peak. That’s all the truth. However, there is a lot wrong with saying that Biden’s age raises serious concerns about his fitness for office and his memory problems raise huge concerns about whether Biden is already in serious cognitive decline and whether voters can trust him to do his job. There is a lot wrong with saying that you hope Biden steps aside because voters will surely have serious concerns that his age, infirmity and cognitive issues make him a very problematic candidate for president. And it doesn’t mitigate all those false narratives being legitimized just because the person also says that if Biden is the nominee, they will still vote for him because at least he’s better than the idiot Trump. It actually makes it worse. “Even many Biden supporters agree that Biden’s advanced age is a very serious concern that will make voters wary of voting for him.”
It isn’t “blind loyalty” to shut down the right wing narratives that undermine Democrats. It isn’t “lying” or “covering up” the truth. Because one can acknowledge the facts while shutting down the false narratives about those facts. The Republicans often acknowledge the facts but shut down TRUE narratives about what those facts mean. So why can’t our side manage to shut down FALSE narratives about our candidates? Why does our side so often legitimize them in the name of “truth”.
I expect to get attacked now about how acknowledging Biden’s many cognitive failings and issues is just being “honest”. It isn’t. Being honest is talking about how good of a president Biden has been. All that he has accomplished. Even when I don’t agree with all of Biden’s policy choices, I know that not a single one of those choices I disagree with is due to Biden’s cognitive failings. These supposedly serious memory issues haven’t affected Biden’s ability to do his job, except for the fact they are being used to undermine him, often with our side’s help.
LikeLike
^^^
There is a very good post about PISA results today.
It is a true fact that PISA scores in this country are somewhat below the International average.
However, there are many false narratives about what those lower PISA scores signify about the failings of public education in the US. There are many false narratives about the significance of PISA scores, period.
I am not a “blind loyalist” to public education because I can acknowledge the “true fact” that the US is below the international average in PISA scores, while completely rejecting the anti-public education false narratives about what that true fact means.
I should get no points for “honesty” if I kept posting on here “PISA scores are below average, that is a very serious problem and of course Americans will be very concerned about what this says about the low teaching standards in public schools today. Even public school supporters understand that these PISA scores raise many questions about the problems in public schools.”
I reject false narratives. Not every narrative is false – some are true. And the right wing is superb at brainwashing the public into accepting false narratives.
LikeLike
Looks like the court is going forward with an evidentiary hearing on the Fani Willis disqualification motion in the Georgia case. Defense claims to have a witness, a former law partner of Wade’s, who they proffer will testify that Willis’s and Wade’s relationship started prior to his appointment as special prosecutor, something Willis denied in her sworn affidavit.
LikeLike
LOL! We already know that Wade and Willis knew each other previously. So I can’t wait to hear what the defense’s definition of “relationship” is.
But then again, I am still trying to translate my kid’s generation’s definition of relationships into the definitions I grew up with. In my day, in ancient times long ago, when two young folks went out on a date, they were “dating”. Dating was what you did to find out if you wanted to be in a relationship! Having a date with someone did NOT mean you had a relationship with them. You had a “relationship” once the two of you mutually decided you were “Going steady” or “girl/boyfriend”.
But it seems to be different now because now young people seem to use “hooking up” to mean what you do before you decide if you want a relationship and “dating” happens after hooking up, and “dating” seems to mean you are in a relationship. But who knows?! Probably the terminology already changed again in the last year. Still, young folks would probably argue that “hooking up” isn’t a “relationship”, and it’s not even clear if it is a friendship. Hooking up comes first. In fact, it seems probable that hooking up with someone is less of a “relationship” to young people than traveling to Italy with someone and sharing lavish meals with them.
I don’t know how the sworn affidavit was worded. But ask your kids if they consider their friends to be in a “relationship” with every person their friends hook up with. Some of them probably hook up and they don’t consider themselves “friends” with that person, let alone “in a relationship” at that time. A “relationship” signals a special commitment to one another that has nothing to do with hooking up. It’s a mutual commitment made by two people, and hooking up has nothing to do with it.
Which I think we all know. If you have two acquaintances who are hooking up with one another and one of them says they are in a relationship and they other one says they aren’t in a relationship, then, unfortunately, they aren’t in a relationship even if one of them thinks they are. They aren’t in a relationship even if someone in their office thinks they are. And If neither of them thinks they are in a relationship, then someone else saying they are in a relationship doesn’t make it a relationship. It’s a new world out there. Having a lavish dinner with someone doesn’t mean you are in a relationship. Occasionally hooking up with someone doesn’t mean you are in a relationship with them.
But it does eventually happen that two people who have been hooking up for a while eventually both decide they want to be in a relationship. I know people that has happened to. It’s sweet. Maybe that happened with Fani and Wade. Or maybe they still aren’t in a relationship but just hooking up. Bottom line is that it really is none of our business. Because it had nothing to do with why Wade was hired, since Fani asked other people who declined because they were too cowardly to cross the powerful Trump folks. Wade was qualified (not withstanding the racist innuendo that he wasn’t) and unlike many attorneys Wade was willing to take the job and has been so good at the job he has done that the defense is trying to get him removed from the case! (What defense attorney would not want a Trump Jr. or a Jared Kushner – people who demonstrated incompetency in pretty much every position they have ever held and yet continued to get positions because of their “relationships” — as the main prosecutor! It would border on legal malpractice for their client.) And we all agree that there is absolutely no conflict of interest that affects the defense if two prosecutors hook up. Or even if they mutually decide they are “in a relationship”. So why do we care again?
I am looking forward to learning more about what constitutes a “relationship”. I’d feel a lot more confident about the Supreme Court Justices if they were just occasionally hooking up with some far right billionaire instead of accepting lavish trips and gifts and getting their homes and loans and kids’ tuitions paid off by them. That’s the kind of relationship that is a conflict of interest.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Bottom line is that it really is none of our business.
I emphatically agree.
LikeLike
Bob,
I agree with your view that the relationship between two members of the prosecutor team is “none of our business.” The judge in the case is holding hearings this week and he has said he will determine the nature of the relationship. What is his need to know?
LikeLike
They are just attempting to do the Aileen Cannon number of this trial as well.
Cheeto “Littlefingers” Trumpbalone, The Teflon Don, 2.0
LikeLike
From the remarks I read yesterday, it sounds like he’s solely interested in whether Willis stands to financially benefit from the appointment of Wade. This involves the theory that she financially benefited from vacations and travel to the extent Wade paid for it. Seems very attenuated to me, but you never know how a judge will react. I also would think that there’s a risk—if the testimony from this supposed “star witness” is as advertised—that the judge concludes that Wade and/or Willis have misled the Court about when the relationship started. I think Willis’s opposition papers argued that there was no romantic relationship prior to Wade’s hiring. The defendants have said that they have a witness who will testify that that’s not true. I haven’t seen any analysis of that point, but lying to a judge in court filings is not a small deal.
LikeLike
FLERP,
I wonder how the mystery witness will prove that Willis and Wade were more than friends.
LikeLike
Seems like irrelevant bait the judge has lurched for. Willis ain’t on trial. This is a playbook we’ve already seen with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Trump covers up his crimes with scandal.
LikeLike
Good question. We shall see in two days.
LikeLike
Diane, remember that they could be hooking up and not even be friends! They could be acquaintances who hook up, friends who hook up, strangers who hook up, or they could be in a “romantic relationship” and travel to Italy together and have lavish candlelight dinners together and not even be hooking up at all! Two people in love don’t have to be hooking up to have a “romantic relationship”. And two people who are hooking up often don’t have a romantic relationship.
Is flerp! suggesting there is a legal definition of when two acquaintances hooking up becomes a “romantic relationship”? And is flerp! suggesting is is normal for a judge – using a 3rd party witness – to determine exactly when the hook up became “romantic” (if it did at all?)
I just find it odd that flerp! even condones this kind of right wing politicization of our legal system with phrases like “lying in court filings is not a small deal”!!! Sure, but having a different opinion of when two people begin their “romantic relationship” does not mean one of you is “lying”.
One thing that has no impact on the defense whatsoever, but is relevant to an attorney’s ethics, is “whether Willis stands to financially benefit from the appointment of Wade. This involves the theory that she financially benefited from vacations and travel to the extent Wade paid for it. ”
I agree with flerp! that if Fani financially benefit here, that would be wrong, but since it is clear the Fani did not financial benefit from travel with Wade, and shared the costs, there is no evidence she did benefit financially. I hope flerp! agrees that getting down to the nitty gritty of how those costs were shared is nonsense. There is no real “financial benefit” because the dinner that one person picked up the bill for was more expensive than the dinner the other person picked up the bill for. There is no real “financial benefit” to one person if two people evenly split a restaurant bill where one person drank two glasses of wine and ordered a steak and the other person had a soda and ordered the chicken. What surprises me is that flerp! even believes this kind of politicization of the legal system is not a BIG deal problem.
Scary times. Hit jobs like this attack on Fani should be called out and rejected. But like the hit job that was Hur’s report, there will be lots of talk about how this matter is a very serious concern. I’m just surprised to see flerp! joining in.
LikeLike
I think, NYC, that Flerp was saying that if they were in a relationship and that Ms. Willis said that they weren’t in a sworn affidavit, then that would be grounds for her dismissal. But it was Wade who so swore, not Willis.
LikeLike
How will the court prove the nature of their relationship?
Wade’s problem is that he said in his divorce papers that there was no “other woman.” In the trial, he swore there was.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I didn’t read FLERP’s remarks the way you did. I think he was warning not to jump to conclusions. I think he said wait and see what came out.
I for one don’t understand why the judge is engaged in a fishing expedition into Willis’s private life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oh no did i upset someone again
never enough drama!
LikeLike
There you go AGAIN, amplifying the normalization of appeasement (or is it normalizing the amplification of appeasement? or appeasing the normalizers of amplification? or engaging in appeasement of the amplifiers of normalization? Hmmm)!
LikeLike
If it makes you feel better, nothing posted here will determine the outcome of the 2024 elections
LikeLike
Bob,
And my point is that “in a relationship” by definition kind of depends on when Fani decided hooking up with Wade became a “relationship” with Wade (or never became a relationship”). Judges don’t make it a practice to decide when hooking up becomes a “relationship”. I also think our legal system is pretty warped if “relationship” is now defined, under penalty of perjury, as “hooked up with” for the sole purpose of attacking Fani. Scary times.
LikeLike
You and I are in total agreement about this. They are on the same team. Their personal lives are their own business.
LikeLike
And, in the business world, I’ve often seen this kind of thing from incredibly capable people. I worked for a company years ago whose owners was secretly married to its Marketing Director. No one knew. LOL. But they were both kickass capable.
LikeLike
flerp! and Bob,
I just expected flerp! to treat this as he treat the Hur report. From the beginning, flerp! didn’t try to normalize the Hur report. It wasn’t normal and it wasn’t hard to say it wasn’t normal.
It’s also not normal to disqualify a prosecutor based on whether a judge decides the prosecutor was “lying” in a court filing because of how she chose to define when she started a “relationship” with a guy she was already acquainted with!
I don’t think that is debatable. Does someone else think it is?
LikeLike
I think that if you are having an affair with someone and you swear under oath that you aren’t, then that’s a violation of the law. Why do I think such a thing? Because it’s a violation of the law.
Whether they were having a relationship before she hired him, who knows? For some time now, people have taken to answering the Facebook question “In a relationship?” with “It’s complicated.”
LikeLike
Bob says “I think that if you are having an affair with someone and you swear under oath that you aren’t, then that’s a violation of the law.”
Don’t you mean “I think that if you are having sex with someone and you swear under oath that you aren’t having sex with someone, then that’s a violation of the law”?
Bob, I thought we already agreed that there is a lot of leeway in what terms like “in a relationship” and “having an affair” means. It has nothing to do with having sex. A guy who goes to a bar and picks up a woman and has sex with her isn’t automatically “having an affair” or “in a relationship” with the woman he just had sex with and might never see again. It would be correct to say he cheated on his wife; it would be correct to say he had sex with a woman other than his wife; but it seems a little weird for a 3rd party who knew this guy had sex with a woman he met in a bar to judge that the two of them “had an affair”. They had sex, not an “affair”. The sex doesn’t mean they are in a “relationship”.
An affair or relationship is about an EMOTIONAL connection and commitment to one another. It isn’t the same as a hook-up. Two people can be “having an affair” without actually having sex. In fact, two people who hug, snuggle together and hold hands are probably more likely to be “in a relationship” or having an affair than two acquaintances – or two co-workers – who meet up for a casual hook-up.
But we all know this. If it wasn’t for the success the right wing has in making folks believe a Democrat committed a crime where there is none, this would be a joke that would never make it to a hearing. I hope the one thing we can all agree upon is that the two consenting adults who engage in a sex act are the only ones who know if they are hooking up, having an affair, or in a relationship. Not a 3rd party!
That’s why all of us should be condemning this politically motivated attempt to smear Fani, instead of theorizing on plausible ways where Fani herself isn’t allowed to decide when hooking up turns into an emotional connection.
This should be an investigation into whether Fani got anything of financial value because she hired Wade. But it seems clear that she didn’t. If the right wing had evidence she did, they wouldn’t have to resort to claiming Fani committed a crime because she admitted to hooking up, but didn’t define “having a relationship” with a person the way the right wing decided was proper. Scary times.
LikeLike
Swearing falsely on a legal document is against the law.
Of course, whether you will be prosecuted for that is a matter of whether you are a member of the Just Us System.
LikeLike
The Trump team is claiming that Wade paid for the plane tickets, the hotel rooms, the dinners. Pocket change. I hope she split the checks.
LikeLike
Bob,
Of course “swearing falsely” is against the law. But please stop confusing a fact that can be determined: did two people have sex? with a fact that cannot be determined: at what point does having sex with someone mean that one is having a relationship or an affair with them.
Two acquaintances have sex then go their separate ways. One swears under oath that they had sex and are in a relationship and having an affair. The other swears under oath that they had sex and are not in a relationship and not having an affair.
Which one committed perjury, Bob? And how does it remotely matter? I would say that they are BOTH telling the truth. Because having sex is something you do, and having a relationship or an affair is something you think. If only one of the two people hooking up believes they are “in a relationship”, is the one who swears they are in a relationship the perjurer, or is the one who swears they are not in the relationship the perjurer?
To anyone who believes one of them committed perjury and one didn’t, and the interests of justice demand a thorough investigation and analysis of the events surrounding the hook-up they both agreed happened — an investigation that includes putting them both under oath and combing through their private lives — I say GET A LIFE.
The interests of justice demands no such thing. Nor would such an investigation into which one committed perjury ever happen without a corrupt Republican party using the judicial system to “get” people who haven’t committed a crime. Including perjury.
LikeLike
In a similar vein, this parsing of language to “get” Democrats on a trumped up crime of “lying” happened quite recently. John Durham actually used his power to prosecute a Democratic lawyer who brought a genuine tip about odd computer activity on a Trump-related server to the FBI. Durham wanted to “get” the Democrat for political reasons (to make Trump look like a victim).
Durham’s case – which he took to trial! – was that this lawyer lied to the FBI. The lawyer had the DNC among his clients, and that fact well-known to the FBI. The lawyer also had tech people as clients (one of them had passed along this tip). But he explained to the FBI that he wasn’t giving them the tip on behalf of a client but because what he heard alarmed him and he thought the FBI should know. Then he left, the pro-Trump FBI had some newly minted inexperienced agent do a cursory faux investigation that seemed to take 10 minutes of asking the people involved if there was anything odd and they reassured her that all was good. Investigation closed.
But that wasn’t the end of it. Durham said the lawyer lied to the FBI because he didn’t say the DNC was his client. If the lawyer would have said the DNC was his client, Durham would have said he lied because the tech guy was his client. If Durham said the Tech guy was his client, Durham would charge him for lying because he didn’t tell the FBI that he didn’t have a client. No crime had been committed, but Durham invented one with no victim, in which the crime of “lying” will be charged regardless of your answer.
The NYT – in multiple news stories – reported that Durham’s case against this lawyer was a very serious allegation, and the preponderance of evidence of his criminal behavior made this a slam dunk guilty verdict. The jury listened to days of evidence and took a short time to find the lawyer not guilty.
I couldn’t believe how close that lawyer came to going to jail for no reason. I couldn’t believe the so-called liberal NYT had embraced Durham’s narrative that what he did unearthed was a prosecutable crime. And I can’t believe that it’s happening again with Fani Willis, and there’s no outrage. The right wing tries and tries again until they win. And the more they win these kangaroo trials, the more they will use these kangaroo trials, knowing they can depend on our side’s willingness to come up with some scenario where this kangaroo court is necessary in the name of justice.
LikeLike
Correction, Flerp:
something WADE denied in HIS sworn affidavit
LikeLike
Ah yes, good correction.
LikeLike
Analogy for today:
Republicans in Congress are to Trump
What flies are to Horse shit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the poop still smells.
LikeLike
Analogies require that the things being compared differ from one another substantially.
LikeLike
I was referring to the stench of one diaper-wearing illegitimate presidential candidate.
LikeLike
ROFL. For years now, my mother has refused to use his name in emails. She just uses a pile of shit emoji. Perfectly appropriate.
LikeLike
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gross-abuse-ag-garland-s-dormer-constitutional-law-professor-is-now-blasting-him/ar-BB1iauMS?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3fd3a324626e421181080a099ca2eaf1&ei=50
LikeLike
Great essay. Thanks, Diane!
LikeLike
Bob’s “Moscow Asset Governs America” (MAGA) is coming into sharper focus.
Tucker showed his hand about a year ago when he publicly aired his preference of a Russia/USA/China alliance (the major power brokers) over protecting Ukraine.
They’re becoming more emboldened. Looks like a strategy to me. Hopefully the American voters will get a clearer picture of what Trump and Co are really pushing, now.
LikeLike