News bits: Faux tells Swift what to do; DJT’s double liar attorney; PA court attacks Dobbs

Mind-blowing Republican hypocrisy

Various media are reporting that America's authoritarian radical right including Faux News is engaged in a propaganda campaign to stop Taylor Swift from involvement in politics. The WaPo made a 1 minute montage of clips from various Faux blowhards insulting Swift and telling her to stay out of politics. The blowhards say things like (i) it is best for her to stay out, (ii) she can't name one Biden policy, (iii) she complains about climate change but she flew on a private jet, (iv) please don’t believe anything Swift says because she does not do what she says.

The Hill reports: 

“Does Taylor realize the guy that they want her to endorse is a kind of stumbling, bumbling mess, doesn’t have the energy to even give a 30-minute speech, let alone perform a three-hour concert like she does?” Hannity said of Swift and Biden on his nightly show. “He also is kind of very creepy. She may want to check out those creepy videos, they’re online.”

Faux accuses Swift of hypocrisy and Biden of being creepy?? The arrogance and hypocrisy of the Faux blowhard crew is stunning. And Hannity is creepy.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Trump’s double liar attorney

The New Republic reports that crackpot Trump attorney Alina Habba, the Kraken-Lite of Trump thugs, has retracted her allegation that the judge on the latest defamation case was biased. She alleged that the judge should have recused himself from the trial due to a conflict of interest with the prosecuting attorney. In her retraction, Habba lied about her original accusation, calling it merely an inquiry. It was not a mere inquiry. It was full blown accusation. 

Then she lied about retraction saying the basis for the conflict of interest allegation had been resolved and there was none. There was no resolution, just statements from the judge and the prosecuting attorney that there was no conflict of interest. That is not a resolution. That is just statements from accused people.

What really pushed Habba back from continuing with the original lie about a conflict was a threat by the prosecuting attorney to seek sanctions against Kraken-Lite for lying to the court and smearing both the judge and prosecuting attorney Roberta Kaplan. Kaplan accused Trump and Habba of asserting “a false narrative of judicial bias” and said she will consider filing for sanctions against Habba.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

The Pennsylvania state supreme court issued an opinion that that abortion restrictions constitute sex-based discrimination and are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. Slate writes: 

The Supreme Court’s eradication of the constitutional right to abortion in 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had an immediate and devastating impact on gender equality in the United States. With a single ruling, five justices wiped out millions of women’s access to basic health care and handed control over their medical decisions to politicians and judges. It wasn’t just the court’s judgment, though, that relegated women to a lesser place in the constitutional order; it was also the court’s reasoning, which used the centurieslong oppression of women to justify an ongoing oppression of women by way of a deprivation of their rights. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion rested largely on the views of dead white men who condoned the rape, beating, and murder of women to maintain female subjugation in every realm of life. And he dismissed his ruling’s ruinous impact on gender equality in a single conclusory paragraph asserting that abortion restrictions could not possibly discriminate against women.

This week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court responded to that conclusion: no. On Monday, the court issued a landmark opinion declaring that abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination and therefore are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.” Justice David Wecht went even further: In an extraordinary concurrence, the justice recounted the historical use of abortion bans to repress women, condemned Alito’s error-ridden analysis, and repudiated the “antiquated and misogynistic notion that a woman has no say over what happens to her own body.”

It is not clear what impact this might have, but at least in Pennsylvania abortion will remain legal. The logic attacking Alito’s crackpot “reasoning” is simple but solid. Restricting abortions does discriminate against women.

Rep. Ilhan Omar faces calls to ‘resign in disgrace’ over speech in support of Somalia

 

https://nypost.com/2024/01/29/news/rep-ilhan-omar-faces-calls-to-resign-in-disgrace-over-unbecoming-speech-in-support-of-somalia/amp/

“Ilhan Omar’s appalling, Somalia-first comments are a slap in the face to the Minnesotans she was elected to serve and a direct violation of her oath of office,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) wrote on X. “She should resign in disgrace.”

Omar, the first Somali American in Congress, appeared to assure her Somali American constituents that she would do everything in her power to prevent the disputed, breakaway Republic of Somaliland from entering into a sea-access deal with landlocked Ethiopia.

A clip of the Minnesota lawmaker went viral with over 2.6 million views after it was posted on X, with a translation saying Omar had said: “As Somalis, one day we will go after our missing territories.”

Newsweek cannot handle inconvenient truth!

A post here yesterday focused on comments by a Palestinian about the mess in the endless Israel-Palestine conflict. I read the article and it just didn’t make a lot of sense to me. So I thought I would set up an account and comment to ask a question. Newsweek rejected the comment. Here is the rejection email with my comments and question:

The AP article I quoted is headlined: Netanyahu says he told the US that he opposes a Palestinian state in any postwar scenario

I clicked on the learn more button in the rejection email and got this:

As far as I can tell, my comments and question were not uncivil, spam, profanity, incoherent, obscene, threatening or an attack on the identity of the author or other commenters. 

That leaves insulting and inflammatory as the only possibilities for rejection. But, were they insulting and/or inflammatory? Apparently so in the eyes of the Newsweek censor. 

But if inconvenient truth is insulting and/or inflammatory to at least some people and that merits censoring it, how is it possible to have open and thoughtful conversations as Newsweek claims it wants? That is how I analyze the reasoning that led to rejecting my comments and question.

For some context about Newsweek:

Qs: Is Newsweek incapable of dealing with inconvenient truth generally, or is this a response limited to exceptionally emotional issues like the endless Israel-Palestine conflict, misery and bloodshed? For example, in an article that denies Republican animosity toward non-heterosexuals or abortion, would Newsweek have rejected similar comments and questions about Republicans passing laws that interfere with the freedoms of (i) the LGBQTN community, or (ii) women who want an abortion? Ditto for a pro-gun article about lack of gun violence but comments and a question about actual data on how severe the gun violence problem actually is? 

Is this just a tempest in a teapot, or is there something important going on here? 

News: Chevron deference; A warning about demagoguery; Elite support for demagoguery

American Progress comments about the pending USSC case that authoritarian radical right elites hope will end Chevron deference, thereby gutting the power of federal agencies to regulate businesses and protect consumers and civil liberties:

The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to overrule 40 years of precedent, which may allow individual judges to implement their partisan policy preferences instead of abiding by agency expertise.

At issue in both Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce is a challenge to a regulation created by the National Marine Fisheries Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, requiring commercial fishing vessels to pay for federal monitors who collect data to ensure that fisheries remain sustainable and viable for decades to come. Rather than address the narrow and technical question on this regulation, however, the Supreme Court opted instead to take up the broader and far more existentially threatening question of whether to completely do away with 40-year-old precedent known as Chevron deference.

The stakes of these cases could not be higher. The conservative legal movement’s efforts to use the legal system to serve the interests of billionaires and corporate behemoths at the expense of the American people has come to fruition. Indeed, ending Chevron deference may prevent agencies from effectively serving the American people and empower corporations to flout vital oversight. Moreover, the outcome could affect nearly every policy area, including health care, civil rights, workers’ rights, education, environmental justice, and financial regulation, to name only a few.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

The NYT writes about federal judge who issued a warning from the bench:

A Republican-appointed judge on Thursday denounced as “shameless” the attempts by prominent Republican politicians to recast the Jan. 6 riot in a positive light, including by portraying the Trump supporters who sacked Congress as having done nothing wrong and by calling those convicted of crimes political prisoners or hostages.

“In my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream,” wrote Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court in Washington. “I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness.”

The remarks, made in a seven-page filing that Judge Lamberth described as notes for what he had said on Thursday at a resentencing hearing for a Jan. 6 rioter, amounted to a scathing and extraordinary broadside against a vast web of conspiracy theories and falsehoods about the Capitol attack that have permeated the right.

Criticizing the rioter, James Little, for displaying “a clear lack of remorse,” the judge used the occasion to also “set the record straight” about what he portrayed as a broader disinformation campaign, citing the evidence he has absorbed from presiding over many Jan. 6 prosecutions.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

A NYT article reports about X and election lies and misinformation it is spreading:

Elon Musk Is Spreading Election Misinformation, but X’s 

Fact Checkers Are Long Gone

In the spring of 2020, when President Donald J. Trump wrote messages on Twitter warning that increased reliance on mail-in ballots would lead to a “rigged election,” the platform ran a corrective, debunking his claims. 

This month, Elon Musk, who has since bought Twitter and rebranded it X, echoed several of Mr. Trump’s claims about the American voting system, putting forth distorted and false notions that American elections were wide open for fraud and illegal voting by noncitizens.

This time, there were no fact checks. And the X algorithm — under Mr. Musk’s direct control — helped the posts reach large audiences, in some cases drawing many millions of views.

Since taking control of the site, Mr. Musk has dismantled the platform’s system for flagging false election content, arguing it amounted to election interference.   

The platform’s algorithm — which dictates how posts are circulated on the site — also now gives added promotion to those who pay to be “verified,” including previously banned accounts.

Among them is @KanekoaTheGreat, a once-banned QAnon influencer who this month circulated a 32-page dossier promoted by Mr. Trump that recounted a barrage of false charges about the 2020 election.

It drew nearly 22 million views.

There you have it as clear as it can be: lies are honest, patriotic and democratic, while inconvenient truth is dishonest, tyrannical and authoritarian. According to corrupt authoritarian radical right elites, asking for truth amounts to election interference. 

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

From the Crackpots, Cranks, Creeps & Weirdos Files: 

GOP Chairwoman Says “Satan” Now Using 

Taylor Swift to Re-Elect Joe Biden

Kandiss Taylor, [a crackpot and] former Georgia school teacher who ran in the Republican primary for Governor in 2022 and who is now the GOP Chair of Georgia’s 1st congressional district, is back in the news with more Taylor Swift criticism. Taylor’s latest Swift attack was triggered by the Kansas City Chiefs winning their conference final matchup on Sunday, sending the team to the Super Bowl — their fourth in five years.

After warning earlier in the fall that Taylor Swift was having a “demonic” effect on today’s youth, the MAGA adherent Taylor still can’t shake it off, as it were — especially since she sees Swift’s role as having grown even more nefarious from a MAGA standpoint. Swift’s latest machinations, according to Taylor, include the singer’s working with “Satan” to “elect Joe [Biden] back into the White House to destroy what’s left of America.”

Taylor’s charge was unverifiable — Satan did not return our calls.

Agent of Satan (but cute!)

The US betrays and abandons the Ukraine? (Looks like it)

PD cited this video in some of his comments. It speaks for itself:

“Redefining success in Ukraine” smells

rather like the Vietnam failure sold to us as

Peace With Honor

 

It sure sounds a lot like the MSM starting to pound the American public with propaganda to soothe consciences about abandoning the Ukraine to the Russians. The goal is to justify the catastrophe that the Ukraine is going to experience once Putin’s Russia overruns the whole country, committing genocide in the process. If this marks the beginning of American abandonment of the Ukraine, it makes me ashamed to be an American. 

Good job, two-party system! 

Well done!

So, of the two parties, who gets the credit for this moral and human disaster? Repubs, maybe ~75% and Dems, maybe ~25%? ~80-20? ~50-50? 

Q: Does this reflect the morality and belief of most Americans, assuming (i) we are going to abandon the Ukraine, and (ii) average Americans understand what is happening?

Some key points in a brief filed in DJT's insurrection case

Some points from the 70 page brief that CREW filed with the USSC, arguing that DJT is an insurrectionist and not eligible to run for president:

These are the issues

according to CREW

Trump identifies no plausible basis to evade disqualification under Section 3. His brief gives only perfunctory treatment to the central issue—whether he engaged in insurrection. He does not show why the detailed 150-paragraphs of trial court factual findings were somehow clear error, and he fails to even acknowledge (much less to rebut) the most damning evidence against him. Section 3 does not give a free pass to insurrectionist Presidents; they are “officers” because they hold an “office.” And states’ broad authority to regulate presidential elections allows them to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from the ballot.

The thrust of Trump’s position is less legal than it is political. He not-so-subtly threatens “bedlam” if he is not on the ballot. Petr. Br. 2. But we already saw the “bedlam” Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost. Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again.

As the Colorado Supreme Court correctly held, any plausible definition of that phrase “would encompass a concerted and public use of force . . . by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.” .... (“insurrection” means “rising of any body of the people, within the United States, to attain or effect by force or violence any object of great public nature” or “to resist, or to prevent by force or violence, the execution of any statute of the United States.”); United States v. Hanway, 26 F. Cas. 105, 127-128 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (similar); .... 

B. Trump engaged in the insurrection

1. The Court should decline Trump’s invitation to re-weigh the facts concerning his involvement in the insurrection. This Court does not overturn plausible factual findings even if it is “convinced that [it] would have decided the case differently,” particularly where, as here, “an intermediate court reviews, and affirms, a trial court’s factual findings.” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 881-882 (2015) (quotations omitted); see also Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 366 (1991) (plurality opinion) (“[I]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, we would defer to state-court factual findings, even when those findings relate to a constitutional issue.”). (emphasis added)

Trump continued inciting the mob. At 2:24 pm—an hour after he learned the Capitol was under violent attack—Trump tweeted:   

Given the trial court’s emphasis on Trump’s 2:24 pm tweet, Trump’s failure to mention it anywhere in his brief confirms how divorced his narrative is from reality. Trump finally told the mob to leave at 4:17 pm, in a message that praised the attackers and justified their actions.

Hours later, Trump celebrated the violence again:

3. Trump contests almost none of this evidence.

4. Finally, Trump advances a perfunctory legal argument that he cannot have “engaged in” insurrection unless he personally committed violent acts. See Petr. Br. 35-36. That is wrong.

The USSC might let DJT run for office again, claiming he was not an “officer” or by some other “reasoning.” I can see two opposing political considerations the six radical authoritarian Republicans are faced with in this lawsuit. 

On the one hand, the authoritarians like corrupt dictatorship, while loathing democracy, civil liberties and transparency. A decision in DJT’s favor has got to be quite enticing. But on the other hand, holding for DJT gives him a lot of power. That poses a serious threat to the court's own ongoing massive power grab in a profoundly corrupt political plutocracy-Christian theocracy framework.

It will be a very interesting decision. To me, either outcome seems to be about equally likely.