Thom Hartmann scores a bulls-eye again with this article.
The American people want the borders to be secure; they want a controlled flow of legal immigrants. It’s up to Congress to establish adequate border security, screening, judges, and border patrol. The Republicans have refused to send additional funds to Ukraine or Israel without a plan for the border. In the Senate, the two parties were close to reaching agreement on a bipartisan deal for the border.
But then, after his victory in New Hampshire, Trump stepped in and told them to kill the almost final agreement. He wants the issue of immigration and border security alive and unresolved for his fall campaign. Terrified of the Wrath of Trump, Senate Republicans fell meekly into line.
Hartmann writes here about previous Republican presidential candidates and presidents who have cynically put their political self-interest above the national interest:
Once again, America and the world are watching with horror as a Republican candidate for president — just to win an election — manipulates world affairs in a way that will cause widespread death and destruction while damaging the interests and reputation of America.
There’s a long tradition of Republicans running for president committing what can best called treason, or at least criminal manipulation of international affairs, to advantage themselves and hurt incumbent Democratic presidents.
Yesterday, Mitch McConnell let the proverbial cat out of the bag. A bipartisan group of senators had been working on a bill to provide funding to Ukraine and Israel, with money for the southern border, and when it looked like they were going to produce something that would actually pass the House and Senate, Donald Trump inserted himself, telling the Republicans they should kill the bill.
Trump apparently wants to run on chaos at the border, and solving the problem as this legislation is intended to do would take that issue away from him. But he’s also explicitly opposed to any further US aid to Ukraine. This is a treasonous twofer, putting Trump’s election above the interests of the United States and world peace.
Trump, of course, knows that if it weren’t for Putin’s intervention in the 2016 election, he never would have been president. And he desperately needs a repeat to hold onto his fortune and stay out of jail: he’s in a far greater bind now than when he first ran for president as a hustle to get GE to pay him more for his TV show.
His 2016 Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, after all, admitted that during that election he was handing secret internal campaign polling and strategy information off to Russian intelligence, so they could successfully use it to micro-target vulnerable voters via Facebook, an effort that reached 26 million targeted Americans in 6 swing states.
Now, Trump wants Putin’s help again for 2024. He knows that Putin can do things from overseas, including using deepfakes and posing as Americans to spread explicit lies on social media, that would send people to prison for election interference if done here in the US.
Putin’s number one goal, of course, is to seize control of Ukraine while destabilizing western democracies. So, Trump, wanting Putin’s help, is now trying to deliver Ukraine to Putin by killing US aid.
This pattern of Republican presidential candidates criminally intervening in foreign policy just to win elections started in 1968 and has been a feature — not a bug — of every Republican president who succeeded in taking the White House since: it’s time to seriously discuss the five-decade-long problem we have with treasonous and illegitimate GOP presidents.
It started in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson was desperately trying to end the Vietnam war. It had turned into both a personal and political nightmare for him, and his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, who was running for President in the election that year against a “reinvented” Richard Nixon.
Johnson spent most of late 1967 and early 1968 working back-channels to North and South Vietnam, and by the summer of 1968 had a tentative agreement from both for what promised to be a lasting peace deal they’d both sign that that fall.
But Richard Nixon knew that if he could block that peace deal, it would kill VP Hubert Humphrey’s chances of winning the 1968 election. So, Nixon sent envoys from his campaign to talk to South Vietnamese leaders to encourage them not to attend upcoming peace talks in Paris.
Nixon promised South Vietnam’s corrupt politicians that he’d give them a personally richer deal when he was President than LBJ could give them then.
The FBI had been wiretapping South Vietnam’s US agents and told LBJ about Nixon’s effort to prolong the Vietnam War. Thus, just three days before the 1968 election, President Johnson phoned the Republican Senate leader, Everett Dirksen, (you can listen to the entire conversation here):
President Johnson: Some of our folks, including some of the old China lobby, are going to the Vietnamese embassy and saying please notify the [South Vietnamese] president that if he’ll hold out ’til November 2nd they could get a better deal. Now, I’m reading their hand. I don’t want to get this in the campaign. And they oughtn’t to be doin’ this, Everett. This is treason.
Sen. Dirksen: I know.
Those tapes were only released by the LBJ library in the past decade, and that’s Richard Nixon who Lyndon Johnson was accusing of treason.
At that point, for President Johnson, it was no longer about getting Humphrey elected. By then Nixon’s plan had already worked and Humphrey was being wiped out in the polls because the war was ongoing.
Instead, Johnson was desperately trying to salvage the peace talks to stop the death and carnage as soon as possible. He literally couldn’t sleep.
In a phone call to Nixon himself just before the election, LBJ begged him to stop sabotaging the peace process, noting that he was almost certainly going to win the election and inherit the war anyway. Instead, Nixon publicly said LBJ’s efforts were “in shambles.”
But South Vietnam had taken Nixon’s deal and boycotted the peace talks, the war continued, and Nixon won the White House thanks to it.
An additional twenty-two thousand American soldiers, and an additional million-plus Vietnamese died because of Nixon’s 1968 treason, and he left it to Jerry Ford to end the war and evacuate American soldiers.
Nixon was never held to account for that treason, and when the LBJ library released the tapes and documentation long after his and LBJ’s deaths it was barely noticed by the American press.
Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon, was never elected to the White House (he was appointed to replace VP Spiro Agnew, after Agnew was indicted for decades of taking bribes), and thus would never have been President had it not been for Richard Nixon’s treason. He pardoned Nixon.
Next up was Ronald Reagan.
During the Carter/Reagan election battle of 1980, then-President Carter had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr to release the fifty-two hostages held by students at the American Embassy in Tehran.
Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as he explained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitor, successfully ran for President of Iran that summer on the popular position of releasing the hostages:
“I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign…. I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote…. Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking].”
Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr’s help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.
But behind Carter’s back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran’s radical faction — Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini — to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election. Khomeini needed spare parts for American weapons systems the Shah had purchased for Iran, and Reagan was happy to promise them.
This is the story that was finally confirmed just last year with The New York Times’ reporting that we now know how the deal was conveyed to the Ayatollah and by whom, including the lieutenant governor of Texas.
This was the second modern-day act of treason by a Republican wanting to become president.
The Reagan campaign’s secret negotiations with Khomeini — the so-called “Iran/Contra October Surprise” — sabotaged President Carter’s and Iranian President Bani-Sadr’s attempts to free the hostages.
As President Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of 2013:
“After arriving in France [in 1981], I told a BBC reporter that I had left Iran to expose the symbiotic relationship between Khomeinism and Reaganism.
“Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the ‘October Surprise,’ which prevented the attempts by myself and then-US President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 US presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”
And Reagan’s treason — just like Nixon’s treason — worked perfectly.
The Iran hostage crisis continued and torpedoed Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes. And the same day Reagan took the oath of office — to the minute, as Reagan put his hand on the bible, by way of Iran’s acknowledging the deal — the American hostages in Iran were released.
Keeping his side of the deal, Reagan began selling the Iranians weapons and spare parts in 1981, and continued until he was busted for it in 1986, producing the so-called “Iran/Contra” scandal.
But, like Nixon, Reagan was never held to account for the criminal and treasonous actions that brought him to office. Which is one reason Bush Jr. and Trump believed they could get away with anything.
After Reagan — Bush senior was elected — but like Jerry Ford — Bush was really only President because he served as Vice President under Reagan. And, of course, the naked racism of his Willie Horton ads helped boost him into office.
The criminal investigation into Iran/Contra came to a head with independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh subpoenaing President George HW Bush after having already obtained convictions for Weinberger, Ollie North and others.
And Walsh was now looking into actual criminal activity by Bush himself in support of the Iran/Contra October Surprise.
Bush’s attorney general, Bill Barr, suggested he pardon them all to kill the investigation and protect himself, which Bush did.
The screaming headline across the New York Times front page on December 25, 1992, said it all: “BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, AVERTING A WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR ASSAILS ‘COVER-UP’”
And if the October Surprise hadn’t hoodwinked voters in 1980, you can bet Bush senior would never have been elected in 1988. That’s four illegitimate Republican presidents.
Which brings us to George W. Bush, the man who was given the White House by five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court.
In the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount — and thus handed George W. Bush the presidency — Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion:
“The counting of votes … does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”
Apparently, denying the presidency to Al Gore, the guy who actually won the most votes in Florida and won the popular vote nationwide by over a half-million, did not constitute “irreparable harm” to Scalia or the media.
And apparently it wasn’t important that Scalia’s son worked for a law firm that was defending George W. Bush before the high court (with no Scalia recusal).
Just like it wasn’t important to mention that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife worked on the Bush transition team — before the Supreme Court shut down the recount in Florida — and was busily accepting resumes from people who would serve in the Bush White House if her husband stopped the recount in Florida…which he did. (No Thomas recusal, either.)
More than a year after the election a consortium of newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today did their own recount of the vote in Florida — manually counting every vote in a process that took almost a year — and concluded that Al Gore did indeed win the presidency in 2000.
As the November 12th, 2001 article in The New York Times read:
“If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won.”
That little bit of info was slipped into the seventeenth paragraph of the Times story so that it would attract as little attention as possible because the 9/11 attacks had happened just weeks earlier and journalists feared that burdening Americans with the plain truth that George W. Bush actually lost the election would further hurt a nation already in crisis.
To compound the crime, Bush could only have gotten as close to Gore in the election as he did because his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, had ordered his Secretary of State, Kathrine Harris, to purge at least 57,000 mostly-Black voters from the state’s voter rolls just before the election. Thousands of African Americans showed up to vote and were turned away from the polls in that election in Florida that Bush “won” by fewer than 600 votes.
The simple reality is that Al Gore won Florida in 2000, won the national popular vote by a half-million, and five Republicans on the Supreme Court denied him the presidency.
Florida Governor and George W. Bush’s brother Jeb had his Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris, throw thousands of African Americans off the voting rolls just before the election but then — when the votes had come in and it was clear former Vice President Al Gore had still won — she invented a brand new category of ballots for the 2000 election: “Spoiled.”
As The New York Times reported a year after the 2000 election when the consortium of newspapers they were part of finally recounted all the ballots:
“While 35,176 voters wrote in Bush’s name after punching the hole for him, 80,775 wrote in Gore’s name while punching the hole for Gore. [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris decided that these were ‘spoiled’ ballots because they were both punched and written upon and ordered that none of them should be counted.
“Many were from African American districts, where older and often broken machines were distributed, causing voters to write onto their ballots so their intent would be unambiguous.”
George W. Bush “won” the election by 537 votes in Florida, because the statewide recount — which would have revealed Harris’s crime and counted the “spoiled” ballots, handing the election to Gore (who’d won the popular vote by over a half-million nationwide) — was stopped when George HW Bush appointee Clarence Thomas became the deciding vote on the Supreme Court to block the recount order from the Florida Supreme Court.
Harris’ decision to not count the 45,599 more votes for Gore than Bush was completely arbitrary: there was no legal category and no legal precedent, outside of the old Confederate states simply refusing to count the votes of Black people, to justify it.
The intent of the voters was unambiguous. And the 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court jumped in to block the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court (in violation of the 10th Amendment) just in time to prevent those “spoiled” votes from being counted, cementing Bush’s illegitimate presidency.
So, for the third time in 4 decades, Republicans took the White House under illegitimate electoral circumstances. Even President Carter was shocked by the brazenness of that one. And Jeb Bush and the GOP were never held to account for that crime against democracy.
To get re-elected in 2004, Bush used an old trick: become a “wartime president.” In 1999, when George W. Bush decided he was going to run for president in the 2000 election, his parents hired Mickey Herskowitz to write the first draft of Bush’s autobiography, A Charge To Keep.
Although Bush had gone AWOL for about a year during the Vietnam war and was thus apparently no fan of combat, he’d concluded (from watching his father’s “little 3-day war” with Iraq) that being a “wartime president” was the most consistently surefire way to get reelected and have a two-term presidency.
“I’ll tell you, he was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” Herskowitz told reporter Russ Baker in 2004.
“One of the things [Bush] said to me,” Herskowitz said, “is: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of (Kuwait) and he wasted it.
“[Bush] said, ‘If I have a chance to invade Iraq, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.’”
Bush lying us into that war was an act of treason against America that cost 900,000 Iraqi lives, over 7,000 American lives (on the battlefield: veterans are still committing suicide daily), and over $8 trillion added to the national debt.
But it did what it was supposed to do: it got Bush re-elected in 2004.
Which brings us to this year’s election.
In 2016, Trump ally Kris Kobach and Republican Secretaries of State across the nation used Interstate Crosscheck to purge millions of legitimate voters — most people of color — from the voting rolls just in time for the Clinton/Trump election.
Meanwhile, Russian oligarchs and the Russian state, and possibly pro-Trump groups or nations in the Middle East, are alleged to have funded a widespread program to flood social media with pro-Trump, anti-Clinton messages from accounts posing as Americans, as documented by Robert Mueller’s investigation.
It was so blatant that it provoked the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment of their similar actions during the 2020 election (done while Trump was still president but released in March, 2021) pretty much declaring Trump a “Russian asset.”
It was a repeat, in many ways (albeit unsuccessful this time) of the Russian efforts in 2016. Then, as mentioned, Republican campaign data on the 2016 election, including which states needed a little help via phony influencers on Facebook and other social media, was not only given to Konstantin Kilimnik by Paul Manafort, but Kilimnik transferred it to Russian intelligence.
And now Trump is trying to exacerbate a crisis on our southern border and screw Ukraine in a way that will lead to mass causalities and disrupt the international order — all to give Putin what he wants — the same way Nixon used Vietnam, Reagan used Iran, and Bush used Iraq, just to win a damn election.
While we can’t rewrite history, at least we can try to prevent it from being repeated. Call your members of Congress — your representative and both your senators — and let them know if you agree that Ukraine aid and resolving the issue at the southern border shouldn’t be held hostage to Trump’s need for Putin’s help and approval.
The number for the congressional switchboard is: 202-224-3121.
It’s way past time that America ceased to be the dog wagged by the tail of corrupt Republicans who want to be president.

As we know. It is a lot BIGGER than “just to win a damn election.” This is the narrative for how each GOPee stole the election. But the real story is what each GOPee administration destroyed & disabled & empowered once in office. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Reagan’s Inner City “War On Drugs”, Military Industrial Complex, Iraqi Oil Fields, Covid-19 Pandemic Genocide On Millions, Militarization of Police & Border Patrol, Racially Driven Voter Disenfranchisement, Privatization of Public School System.
The list continues.
LikeLike
An interesting article from politico: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/10/the-time-nixons-cronies-tried-to-overturn-a-presidential-election-428318
I have read Hartman’s history of Republican meddling in presidential elections, and often wondered what academic historians are saying about these journalistic histories of Hartman. I have been unable to find academic historians weighing in on the Hartman Thesis, which is that the Republicans have engaged in subterfuge since Nixon. The above article from Politico is interesting. It is supportive of the Hartman Thesis.
It is of note that Joe down at the barbershop discounted Hartman’s Thesis by suggesting that “all them politicians do stuff like that.”
For some reason, I have always trusted the history department. Maybe it is the footnotes. Perhaps my experience with their devotion to the truth. So devoted to truth are history departments that they regularly write in prose so stilted that English majors go to sleep walking past their open office doors. But it’s usually close to the truth.
Meanwhile, I am waiting for a Republican rebutal in the news. Haven’t seen that yet.
LikeLike
Roy,
Historians often disagree and point to different sources. But historians understand that opinions are not evidence. They must be able to identify sources and put their cards on the table.
LikeLike
Roy, I don’t understand. What needs confirming? Nothing Hartman says here is speculative. It’s all known now. Repugnican candidates have slept with the enemy to rig elections time after time after time. Everyone who has paid any attention knows these things, including all historians.
LikeLike
Bob: I really was commenting on my own bias. I trust Thom Hartman as a journalist. But, as a historian, I would trust Some old stogy historian more.
LikeLike
But, again, everything he says is known. It’s now on the record, as it were. Anyone who knows about these matters knows these things Hartmann says in this piece. None of this is theoretical at this point.
LikeLike
Bob: I never said I questioned the facts presented by Hartman. I was, instead, wondering aloud if academic history had treated topics like the Reagan/Iran deal that denied hostage release until after the election. There have been enough years for documents to arise that would become fodder for the academic historian to treat.
Moreover, I was wondering at my own trust in these guys due to my own training. I know that today’s journalism begins tomorrow’s history.
LikeLike
October Surprise by Gary Sick (1991): This book is based on the author’s investigation as a former member of the National Security Council. He claims to have found evidence of secret meetings between Reagan’s representatives and Iranian officials in Europe. He also cites testimonies from former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr and other sources.
Trick or Treason: The October Surprise Mystery by Robert Parry (1993): This book is a follow-up to the author’s reporting for PBS Frontline and Newsweek. He argues that the Reagan campaign sabotaged Carter’s efforts to free the hostages and that the CIA and other agencies covered up the truth. He also reveals new information from former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and former CIA operative Richard Brenneke.
October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan by Robert Dreyfuss (2020): This book is a comprehensive account of the October Surprise theory, drawing on declassified documents, interviews, and archival research. The author contends that the Reagan campaign conspired with Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to prolong the hostage crisis and that this paved the way for the Iran-Contra scandal.
And then there is this:
LikeLike
Love your positions, mission and purpose for public education Diane, but outside of that not so much. Pelosi recently said that people advocating for a cease-fire in Gaza were doing Putin’s work. What do you think about Pelosi’s statement, since you yourself have advocated for a cease-fire Diane? I’m pretty sure you’re not working for Putin. Is Pelosi using using Russia to shut down a dissenting opinion in regards to Israel?
LikeLike
ArtsSmart,
There are many different ways of viewing a ceasefire. My bottom line is that I want the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a permanent end to the violence in the region. I want to see two states, one for each side, living in peace.
I agree with President Biden that the Israeli response to the atrocities of October 7 is “over the top.”
I have no faith or trust in Netanyahu, who has an impossible goal of eliminating Hamas.
I do not trust Hamas, which said after October 7 that they would do the same again and again.
Peace requires a ceasefire but also must guarantee that Hamas and Hezbollah will abandon their goal of eliminating Israel.
A new Palestinian state must have peacekeepers for many years to assure that the diehard terrorists do not plot another attack.
So, yes, I would love to see a permanent ceasefire, coupled with the disarming of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. This can only occur under the supervision of outside nations. To make peace, Israel must be assured that it won’t be attacked again.
LikeLike
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and that should have been the end of the story. We might have had 2 terms of Hillary but instead we had 1 term of Trump the Terrible, enough time for him to install 3 righty Supreme Court justices. The Electoral College should have been flushed down the toilet of history ages ago.
LikeLike
If Marcy Wheeler is correct, we should expect to hear a lot about Joe Biden’s diaries, which Hur has labeled “notebooks” so as to be able to delve into and publicize their contents.
LikeLike
Wheeler, with my comments.
“First, classified entries in “diaries” that Hur persistently called “notebooks” to obscure the fact that the Presidential Records Act affirmatively excludes diaries from the statute and, presumably, to provide himself license to read through them all.”
In fact, the Presidential Records Act includes diaries, journals, and personal notes. All three are explicitly mentioned.
Hur himself says that Biden’s notebooks are excluded by the statute. Several times.
A more likely explanation is that Reagan and the National Archives and the press referred to Reagan’s books of notes as “diaries.” In fact, they were diaries because he would take a separate time each day to write in them. In contrast, both Biden and the National Archives referred to his notebooks as notebooks because these were books that he kept notes in during meetings. BIDEN referred to them as notebooks as opposed to diaries because they were notebooks.
In fact, as Biden himself says, the notebooks did contain notes on Top Secret and SCI material and so were themselves Top Secret and SCI material, so it was completely within Hur’s bailiwick/brief/scope of work to view these.
“Hur couldn’t charge those documents because DOJ didn’t charge Ronald Reagan for the classified entries in his diaries”
Hur himself says this. Several times. But it is stated in Wheeler’s article as though this were a revelation SHE were making. This has happened A LOT in her reporting on the Hur report.
“There was no direct evidence that Biden wilfully [sic] retained these documents,”
Again, Hur himself says this. And Hur goes into great detail on why it could be the case that he did not willfully retain the documents.
“Hur’s imagined motive for why Biden would — vindication that he was right about Afghanistan — is nonsensical, given that Biden had better vindication inside a desk drawer in his house, the 40-page memo Biden sent President Obama warning him it’d be a mistake to surge troops in Afghanistan.”
In each case, for the hundreds of documents found in Biden’s residences and at the Penn Biden Center and the University of Delaware, Hur goes into excruciating detail concerning possibilities for how they got where they are. These are presented as possible explanations (not as “imagined motives”–some of them posit motives; some do not) and their provability is then examined. Hur is at pains to say that the possible explanation that Biden kept these to vindicate himself because they deal with the troop surge, which Obama approved and Biden opposed, is not provable.
And so on.
This is another hatchet job on a report that in places is a hatchet job.
LikeLike
From my reading of the Hur report, I conclude that Hur attempted to be exhaustive in covering the possibilities for the eventual locations of the documents, in enormous and excruciating detail and, in each case, to explain, again in excruciating detail, why each particular document trail considered was not provable, including those possibilities that involved motivation. This last is important in the report because to charge Biden would require being able to prove intent, and HUR HIMSELF, in his report, goes to enormous length to explain why such intent is NOT provable. HUR DOES.
LikeLike
Bob, I posted the link to Wheeler’s site because it’s relevant to this post, not because I endorse everything she posits, of course. Overall, we need to keep in mind that Hur, like John Durham, Bill Barr, and David Weiss (Hunter Biden’s case) are not honest brokers, but rather chaos agents. They use the DOJ to further undermine justice.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree with you entirely, Christine! And I know you to be a more careful thinker than to endorse all the stuff that Wheeler says.
LikeLike
Christine,
Wheeler does very careful analyses of facts. Like Diane Ravitch, if she makes errors, she corrects them.
The Hur Report carefully documented all the evidence Hur found after a year of exhaustive investigation with EVERYONE cooperating fully. There was only one possible conclusion from all the evidence Hur found — that regardless of whether Biden was a 40 year old man at the peak of his cognitive abilities, a 55 year old man whose cognitive abilities were declining from their peak, a 70 year old man whose cognitive state was declining a little more, or an 80 year old man whose cognitive abilities had declined a little more, there was no evidence of any criminal intent. That’s a very simple conclusion Hur could have written.
So why did Hur ignore all that evidence he included in his report to imply that he didn’t prosecute Biden because of Biden’s age and memory issues, which clearly implies that the evidence Bob correctly points out is in the report would be grounds to prosecute a younger man in peak cognitive condition? That is absolutely false. And Wheeler INTENTIONALLY cites the same evidence that is included in the 380 page report to demonstrate how often Hur ignores all this evidence to make unwarranted speculation and innuendo that is the OPPOSITE of what the evidence in his report proves.
Wheeler reminds all of us what the evidence is in the report so that we can see for ourselves that the fact that aides pack boxes full of various random stuff has nothing to with “age” or “memory problems”. And the fact that packed boxes sit unused in a cellar has nothing to do with “memory problems”. And the fact that presidents have diaries or notebooks that they are allowed to keep has nothing to do with “memory problems”. Wheeler shows that Hur wasn’t interested in exonerating Biden — he was focused on finding something he could include in the report to smear him. And he could not. So instead Hur wrote a report that successfully got a lot of people to believe that Biden did something that a younger person without memory issues would be prosecuted for, but the reason Biden isn’t being prosecuted is that the prosecutor thought the jury would be sympathetic to an elderly Biden with memory problems, and therefore not convict him for crimes that they would convict a younger man at his cognitive peak for.
That isn’t true. And Marcy Wheeler is doing an angel’s work in reminding us that the evidence in Hur’s own report PROVES that narrative is false. And by citing that evidence, she shows the malice that Hur must have had to IGNORE that evidence and instead suggest that Biden did something wrong, and it’s only because Biden is old with memory problems that Hur is giving Biden a pass.
Remember that Biden’s attorneys wrote a letter about this and Hur also ignored the letter! It sure seems like Hur was happy for the public to ignore the evidence he had cited in the report and instead focus on the innuendo in the conclusions.
What good is a 380 page report where the prosecutor offers up evidence that clearly exonerates Biden – or exonerates any 40 year old at his cognitive peak – but then ignores all that evidence and instead uses innuendo that Biden isn’t being prosecuted because of his old age and memory problems?
Of course Marcy Wheeler has to cite all the evidence that’s in the report itself to CONTRADICT what Hur is implying about this evidence – that a young man without memory problems would be prosecuted based on this evidence.
It is mystifying to read Bob’s gratuitous insults of Wheeler, a woman who has studied and learned about the law so as to understand it. A woman so careful to cite evidence and relevant law, and so willing to acknowledge and correct her mistakes. I wish all of us were as careful and honest as Marcy Wheeler and Diane Ravitch.
LikeLike
“So why did Hur IGNORE [my emphasis] all that evidence he included in his report to imply that he didn’t prosecute Biden because of Biden’s age and memory issues,”
Well, he didn’t do that. That’s precisely what he did NOT do, as you would know if you had actually read the report. Here’s what Hur actually does in this report:
One by one, systematically, excruciatingly, he looks at each piece of evidence and at each theory and concludes that it does NOT justify prosecuting Biden for one reason or another, including that intent could not, in any of these cases, be proved, except with regard to the notebooks which were by precedent exempt.
THAT’S what Hur does.
Wheeler? Don’t get me started. A hatchet job on a hatchet job.
LikeLike
One by one, Hur goes through the pieces of evidence and the theories and analyzes each and concludes that FOR VARIOUS REASONS not one of them is sufficient to prove that Biden committed a crime.
LikeLike
I was the first person to mention the Hur report on this blog, I believe. I wrote a note saying that Hur’s report was going to be much discussed over the coming days. Why did I bother to read it in its entirety? Because I thought that Hur had stepped well over his bounds, his purview, outside his bailiwick, into political partisanship. However, the facts matter. So, when people make false claims about the report, I will say so. And when they imply things about the report that aren’t true–for example, that he didn’t do what he in fact did–I’m going to point that out too.
We Democrats are supposed to be different from the current Repugnican Party under Trump. We are supposed to care about the facts. We are not supposed to simply stake out a partisan position. The facts are the facts. There aren’t good facts and bad facts. There are one’s we like hearing and ones we don’t, but we have to accept both. As Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, we must “Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion.” –from Huxley, “On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and Its History,” 1874
LikeLike
It is still my position that Hur stepped way over his bounds and that Garland committed misfeasance at best and malfeasance at worst by not redacting the garbage in this report about Biden’s acuity. That’s way outside the bounds of DOJ precedent, according to Tribe and Luttig.
LikeLike
Marcy Wheeler doesn’t do hatchet jobs. She doesn’t knee jerk defend Democrats. Which you would know if you ever read her blog with an open mind.
You don’t have an iota of evidence that Garland committed malfeasance and yet I have heard you make that claim over and over in the last few days. And worse.
Wheeler doesn’t do that. Wheeler carefully supports her criticism with evidence from the report itself.
You say “One by one, Hur goes through the pieces of evidence and the theories and analyzes each and concludes that FOR VARIOUS REASONS not one of them is sufficient to prove that Biden committed a crime.”
True. Hur does all that. But IN OTHER PLACES IN THE REPORT Hur uses innuendo to insinuate that Biden did something wrong, innuendo that is contradicted by Hur’s own evidence.
That’s why I find it so odd that you make all these unwarranted attacks on Marcy Wheeler.
Wheeler expects a report based only on evidence Hur gathered. Not a report that is based on evidence Hur gathered (which is okay) plus innuendo about Biden’s guilt that is CONTRADICTED BY THAT SAME EVIDENCE!
Of course Wheeler has to cite the same evidence that Hur previously concluded didn’t prove Biden committed a crime if that evidence contradicts Hur at some different place in the report insinuating that Biden DID do something wrong.
This should not be that complicated, Bob.
Did you read the report AND the letter from Biden’s attorney? A letter that Hur received based on the draft report. A letter that Hur decided to ignore.
“If the evidence does not establish guilt, then discussing the jury impact of President Biden’s hypothetical testimony at a trial that will never occur is entirely superfluous.”
Bob, you seem to be objecting to Marcy Wheeler because she is citing the same evidence Hur uses to exonerate Biden to challenge Hur’s OTHER insinuations that Biden did something wrong. Why doesn’t she have every right to do so without you mischaracterizing her as a political hack?
What Marcy Wheeler is doing is important. How are you missing that Hur’s Report doesn’t just exonerate Biden based on the evidence, Hur’s report ALSO ignores that very same evidence to make innuendos about Biden wrongdoing. Wheeler citing Hur’s own evidence to disprove Hur’s false innuendo is perfect. I have no idea why you object to it and gratuitously trash her for it.
Perhaps you don’t agree with all of Wheeler’s analysis. That’s okay. But rejecting all of Wheeler’s careful analysis as some partisan hackery? Not acceptable.
LikeLike
What is not acceptable in Hur’s report are the personal attacks on Biden’s acuity and age. Both Lawrence Tribe (who was one of Hur’s law school professors) and J. Michael Luttig, who served as a U.S. circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006, have said that by including that material, Hur stepped WAY OUTSIDE DOJ norms AND that Garland should have redacted this material because it is so far outside those norms, which are not to cast suspicion on people who are not being charged.
LikeLike
Garland had the authority to redact the offensive speculation. He decided not to.
LikeLike
Exactly, and he was wrong to do so. I’m seeing a pattern here. So are Tribe and Luttig. Both mention Garland’s inexcusable delay in prosecuting Trump, his breathtakingly irresponsible appointment of the partisan Hur as Special Counsel for the Biden case, and his failure to redact this document that goes WAY OUTSIDE normal DOJ protocol. Fishy AS HELL.
LikeLike
One point stood out to me.
“Putin’s number one goal, of course, is to seize control of Ukraine while destabilizing western democracies.”
I disagree with half of that sentence.
Ukraine is one more step, a minor short term goal, on the long road to Putin’s number one goal, to rule the only superpower in the world, with the United States economically destroyed and no longer a democracy while China lets Putin rule roughshod over the world, as long as he stays out of China. Ha! Little does China know that if Putin achieves his major goal and gets rid of his first major target, democracies, China will be next.
To become a superpower, Putin has to rebuild the Soviet Union and expand it so he has more cannon fodder to force into fighting more wars as he keeps expanding like metastatic cancer that’s spread throughout the body to the bones and every organ.
“On January 1, 1991, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world, covering some 8,650,000 square miles (22,400,000 square km), nearly one-sixth of Earth’s land surface. Its population numbered more than 290 million, and 100 distinct nationalities lived within its borders.”
Today, what’s left of the empire that was known as the Soviet Union has 143.4 million population.
vs
As of 1 January 2023, the population of the EU is slightly over 448 million people. 0.1% (2020 est.) 9.5 births per 1,000 (2020 est.
Plus, the US with more than 330,000,000 population.
Putin wants, no needs, more bodies to throw into wars to expand his empire as he breaks every country taht stand in his way. Right now, that’s the US, Canada, UK and EU.
LikeLike
What is Putin’s “number 1 goal”?
Well, Putin has told us. On 12 July 2021, Putin published his essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” This is an imperialist screed in which Putin presents an almost entirely fanciful (that is mythological and false) history of Russia and Ukraine AND argues for the historical necessity of the creation of a Greater Russia composed of Russia, Ukraine, and a whole lot of neighbors of Russia and Ukraine. This, he flat out tells us, is his overriding goal. This is what he cares about accomplishing.
LikeLike
I hesitate to post this because it is full of lies and false history. But here it is. If you read this, then please follow that up with an antidote to the poison, an analysis of the essay by Timothy Snyder.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians
LikeLike
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/26/1083332620/how-ukraines-history-differs-from-putins-version
LikeLike
https://www.vox.com/22950915/ukraine-history-timothy-snyder-today-explained
LikeLike
For much more detail, an actual detailed history of Ukraine that I found spellbinding, listen to these:
LikeLike
John Stewart, in his return to The Daily Show, brings a bit of levity to our everyday dire status.
LikeLike
Mary Trump just published a denunciation of Jon Stewart for normalizing her uncle, who she says is insane.
LikeLike
Well, Mary Trump is far better positioned than most of us to judge that, and I understand why her red alarm is loudly clanging. I disagree that Stewart is normalizing Trump, though. Satire seldom normalizes, rather it ridicules.
LikeLike
I am completely convinced that Donald Trump is literally insane, that he far more than meets but rather exemplifies the standard symptoms of psychosis.
LikeLike
I will have to watch Jon Stewart’s show myself. That night, I went to bed early (10:30). I love Jon Stewart.
LikeLike
Start here
Star here
LikeLike
re : “His 2016 Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, after all, admitted https://greatschoolwars.wordpress.com/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=04751d935be458e9a1574a6a85873994733aa78abdf492be4cbc449cb5987d6b&blog_id=35325440&post_id=146176&user_id=0&subs_id=4117726&signature=6e7e6813e36957fa2e1c87f6da9784d4&email_name=new-post&user_email=fullerg@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9leC10cnVtcC1jYW1wYWlnbi1jaGFpcm1hbi1wYXVsLTE0MDgwMzMwOC5odG1s that during that election he was handing secret internal campaign polling and strategy information off to Russian intelligence, so they could successfully use it to micro-target vulnerable voters via Facebook, an effort that reached 26 million https://greatschoolwars.wordpress.com/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=a10840796325bf53464356e9053fe9424d9e1a5fed311b9c9ca78acbd16942ec&blog_id=35325440&post_id=146176&user_id=0&subs_id=4117726&signature=9c8cd461b2aede5f32e44a6af4842bd4&email_name=new-post&user_email=fullerg@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2JzbmV3cy5jb20vbmV3cy9jb25ncmVzcy1yZWxlYXNlcy1hbGwtMzAwMC1wbHVzLWZhY2Vib29rLWFkcy1ib3VnaHQtYnktcnVzc2lhbnMv targeted Americans in 6 swing states.”
Diane did you ever see any of those FaceBook ads -allegedly attributable to Russian Troll Farms ?
I saw as many as our media ran with related stories . I took the additional step of researching the ad budgets/spending and found that the sums paid to Facebook and Twitter both amounted to a relative pittance.
Further, I judge the quality of the ads comical to incompetent based on my many years of marketing and AD experience.
More, I don’t think that these ads had a significant impact on the 2016 election. Obviously there were plenty of other problems with the Democratic candidate’s campaign .
Hartman is right about the GOP in general.
G F
LikeLike