The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast is Molly Jong-Fast, special correspondent for Vanity Fair and host of the Fast Politics podcast. As Al writes, she “joins us for a wide ranging conversation covering Congress, abortion, the protests happening around the country and the Presidential election. She also discusses the ongoing Trump hush money scandal happening in NYC. She says the trial is over-delivering, which could mean a guilty verdict for Trump.”
0 Comments
As the Trump Chowder and Marching Society has made its way from Washington to the Manhattan courthouse in their red tie and gray suit uniforms, there's been a variety of diittohead themes they've been repeating repeating to the press. However, one has particularly stood out for me. And which is tied to a larger point.
To be clear, all such yelps have been notable. After all, when one is an elected member of Congress, you sort of hope they not only believe in, but also strongly support the three branches of government to which they swore an oath. So, hearing them slam the judiciary -- without any comment on the actual evidence being addressed at the trial and testified to under oath -- is not just disheartening, but long-term problematic for democracy, but then it's also not unexpected since attacking other sources of power that could impede your authority is one of the main tenets of fascism. It's almost as if they're reading from a script written by their leader on trial to whom they pay fealty -- as indeed, from eyewitness testimony, that appears to be the case. Still, for all that, there is that one wailing cry that has most stood out for me. Which itself leads to a larger point that I'll get to in a moment. But first, that one notable cry is their repeated mournful moan about "The Judge's Daughter" (tm) -- which is reprehensible enough, bringing the child of an official, a private citizen having absolutely nothing to to do with the trial, into public scorn and putting her at physical risk given the triggered anger of Trump's acolytes (though, in fairness, the MAGOP in Congress do have experience with this sort of thing, having been practicing on Hunter Biden). And so they've carried it on, beating their chests in angst over the fact that "The Judge's Daughter" (tm) is making "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in her opposition of Trump. Now, first, when hearing that, I'm sure there are many people who think, "Whoa, that is a cool side gig. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for just opposing Trump? Where can I find out how to get in on that!?" I mean, if this ever turned into a cottage industry, it could be the greatest boon to the economy since the CIA launched Taylor Swift. But second, what the Trump Chowder and Marching Society folk have yet to explain is how what "The Judge's Daughter" (tm) does on her own time has impacted a single one of Judge Merchan's ruling or his management of the trial. They cry out it's unfair and supposedly corrupt, they've just left out how. And third, I would love to give them all a pop quiz to find out how many of the Trump C&M Society know the name of "The Judge's Daughter (tm). But still, despite not ever explaining what the actual evidence is of "corruption" (a MAGOP concept that falls under the Rudy Giuliani Rubric -- "We've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence"), nor giving any idea of what she does or how they know how much she earns, or (happily) what her name is, still they go out, woefully shouting to the heavens about non-existent, but suspected "corruption." Against a private citizen. (You'd think they'd have learned the $148 million lesson Giuliani did about defaming a private citizen for her non-existent part in non-existent "corruption. But apparently, if it's in the Fascist Playbook, you keep using it. Whatever the cost.) And that brings us to the larger point, which occurred to me as a result of this. It so happens that I'm actually heartened by how outraged (!!) the Trump Chowder and Marching Society has been about their belief that a sitting judge could be corrupted because of the actions of a family member who makes money off her efforts. The fact that they have no actual evidence is this specific case is secondary. The mere fact, as a concept, that they are mortified, sickened, horrified that a sitting judge could be corrupted because of the actions of a family member, who makes money off her efforts, is a glorious sign of hope for sanity and decency and holding judges accountable for their misdeeds. And because of that, it is my expectation that after Trump's Manhattan trial is over, the outraged TCMS bandoleros will turn their full attention and fury on the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas. After all, while there's zero evidence of any collusion and wrongdoing by Judge Merchan and his daughter, there is overflowing evidence of corruption by Thomas and his wife, a woman who worked actively with those who tried to overthrow the government -- from texts to on-the-record conversations to attendance at events to her job from which she earned significant income, which we know from public records. And further, Justice Thomas didn't recuse himself, but actually voted on a case that would have impacted his wife's work. So, no doubt, living by the exact same standard, all these Trump devotees who are so furiously outraged (!!) at "The Judge's Daughter (tm) must be most assuredly as head-exploding livid at "The Justice's Wife." (Patent pending.) Now, yes, I know that Justice Thomas says that he and his wife never ever talk about their work to one another. But to believe that, one has to believe that in their 37 years of marriage, all they talk about is "Nice weather today", "Did you remember to gas up the RV?", "Please pass the potatoes," and "I hate Doonesbury." And even more, you would also have to believe that in almost four decades, this couple (both of whose work is immersed almost solely in current events and politics, and reported on) never watch the news! Or never read a newspaper. Or never browse a news site. In fact, just imagine how limited conversations are when having dinner out with friends. Each of them sticking their fingers in their ears and muttering "Nahnahnah nah nah!! I don't want to hear" when the other's work is referenced by someone else at the table. ("That was a great picture of you, Ginni, at the Stop the Stea..." The sudden, curdling angst before instantly blocking the rest of the sentence must always be agonizing.) Of course, if you can somehow get over that monumental hurdle, then you also have to accept that a father doesn't know what his daughter is doing. Which actually is far more believable than a husband and wife being totally clueless about the other for 37 years. But accepting that about a father and daughter, obviously, as we've seen by their outrage (!!) is a bridge too far. An impassable hurdle too high. Which is why I am thrilled and so look forward to MAGOPs in Congress being true to their high standard that a judge shouldn't be influenced by the actions of a family member who makes money off her opposition efforts and therefore will soon be leading the charge to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas. The wall of that hypocrisy would be far too high, even for MAGOPs. Though I suppose they could always dig down as low as possible and go underneath. If you didn't see Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Sunday, the Main Story was about opioids. However, it's not from the perspective of most news stories and the several recent limited series. The focus here is about what's happened to the money that many companies have paid in settlements -- upwards to $50 billion. It's a long, detailed story and very interesting. As well as, often very funny. I thought that President Biden debate challenge to Trump was brilliant – not that he made the challenge or how he did it, taunting Trump (those were excellent, but not what most pleased me) – but for another specific reason, something that I’ve been yammering about for years.
The challenge was, indeed, excellent on its own. While I know that some analysts were saying that the President shouldn’t debate, since it would raise Trump to his level, I never bought that. For all his negatives, Trump is a former president. You can’t get around that. But I think one of the reasons Trump is polling as well as he’s been is that it’s early in the campaign, the general public, other than MAGOPs and news junkies, hasn’t seen Trump all that much, most especially at rallies, when he is especially dark, dystopian and failing mentally – notably mixing up words in ways psychiatrists call paraphasia, one of early signs of dementia -- and to a large degree many people have likely forgotten how disruptive Trump is. Putting Trump on a debate stage, where he can be asked tough questions which he hasn’t had to answer for four years at his rallies and avoiding tough interviews and bypassing all the Republican debates, where he can be triggered by Biden, and where the public can see his mental failing is critically important to remind voters and show voters who Trump is today and all the baggage he carries. In particular, there are two questions that will be especially difficult for Trump to answer without going into a meltdown rant. I’m not sure if one of the questions will be asked, though Biden might allude to it, to trigger Trump, but the others could be – and should be – and if not, would be easy for Biden to bring up, and I’m sure he’ll be primed to. That question is, “Who won the 2020 debate?” Trump has to answer that he did, since he believes it and has been crying it for the past 3-1/2 years, and he’d likely go into a “the election was rigged!!” rant. The other question, which as I said might not be brought up, since it’s touchy – but irresponsible if it’s not – is “Mr. Trump, how do you convince people to vote for someone who was found liable by two juries for the equivalence of rape?” And if asked, Trump will surely do what he always does and that’s go into a meltdown rant about how “I don’t know that woman!!!” I think just one of those questions and answers would be devastating to Trump. And two of them would be crushing. But those are the "Game Over" questions that may or may not get asked. There are policy issues that absolutely will be asked that will be damning in their own right. For starters, abortion. The best Trump can try is his cry of "states' rights." But the rest of the field is open for President Biden to explain Trump taking credit for ending Roe v. Wade, and list all the Red states that are banning abortion -- and make clear his full-throated support for abortion. Also, one of Joe Biden's weak points to young voters and some minorities is his support of Israel and how that has impacted Gaza. But Trump will be onstage, and showing how far more violent he'll be. And worse, his position on banning Muslims from the country and keep a registry of Muslims in the country will be tied to the discussion. And related to this will be Trump's position on deporting undocumented Mexican immigrants, tearing apart families, and creating internment camps. It's hard to imagine that his cruel and draconian position on such things -- while perhaps appealing to his base -- won't outrage Mexican-Americans and Muslims who weren't previously aware of his views and actions he wants to take. And infrastructure will most surely be brought up. Which offers President Biden a trifecta -- the chance to tout all the many programs he was put into reality, while also chiding Trump for all his failed "Infrastructure Weeks" when nothing got done...which will then trigger Trump. Moreover, the debates will be a chance for Joe Biden to bring up (as I'm certain he will) that, however much Trump talks about his support, Trump's Vice-President is not supporting him. Nor is his first Secretary of State. Nor much of his cabinet. Nor his Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. Nor his National Security Advisor. People who actually know him -- and know him well. To be clear, it’s not certain that Trump will debate. He insists he will, but he insists he will do a lot of things, and never does. Most recently, that he will testify in his Manhattan trial. But there’s so much more, including that he’ll be explaining his big, beautiful healthcare plan in two weeks – which he repeatedly said four years ago. And we’re still waiting for Melania’s press conference on her immigration status, which was promised eight years ago. And so much more. But if I had to make a bet, it would be that he will. In part because he was so ridiculing in his “any place time, any place” taunt of President Biden – and similarly, because President Biden taunted him in return on several levels. But it’s the ground rules that President Biden’s team set up – and that Trump has apparently agreed to – that I think is most brilliant, one in particular. The four ground rules were pretty basic, but all very good. Two debates, early in the campaign, and just President Biden and Trump. No third party candidates. Only networks that carried primary debates for both parties can participate for coverage and the reporters on the panels. No audience to play to and react, just a serious debate. But it’s the fourth ground rule that, when I heard it, I let out a whoop. That microphones would only be activated when it was a candidates turn to speak!!! I love it. Love, love, love it. As I noted, I’ve been bringing this up for years, and never dreamed it would get anywhere. But it is so brilliant of the Biden Team bringing it up. Having Trump’s microphone off is like taking away an ax from an ax murderer. And it serves two purposes. One, that Trump obviously won’t be able to interrupt President Biden when he’s talking. And two, Trump being Trump will most surely talk and respond to the President, because he can’t help himself, and that will be heard in the background…and, being in the background, will show him to be petulant and unable to control himself and breaking the agreed upon rules. So – great. Wonderful. None of this is to say that there will be a debate, or that President Biden will mop the floor with Trump. In fact, presidents running for re-election have often done poorly in the first debate. The difference here is that Trump hasn’t been debating either for a long time, which likely equalizes things. And all the more – I am sure that the Biden team will be preparing to trigger Trump every way possible. Which is braindead easy, starting with saying, “Trump was wrong.” And in the end, troubling too for Trump is his mental issues, which are very real, are not going to be getting better. If you didn't see Jon Stewart's hosting of The Daily Show on Monday, it was wonderful. He had a blunt, scathing and hilarious takedown of Sen. Robert Menendez's corruption trial -- which he then followed with an equally blunt, scathing and hilarious look at political corruption in general. Here's the video -- I admit to being fascinated by the very recent parade of VP wannabees coming to court to pay homage to Trump, along with a few others who find it in their best interest to show their fealty, like Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). I'm fascinated for many reasons. Among them - None of them showed up for the first couple of weeks of the trial - they only popped in for the highest visibility days when Michael Cohen was testify. None showed up, though, on the other high-visibility days when Stephanie Clifford testified. Apparently being tarnished with nearness to a porn actress wasn't in their best interests. Though, in fairness, it didn't seem to bother Trump when he had sex with her when married. Some of them, if not many of them, if not most of them don't even go into the courtroom to "show their support" (which is really where support would be most shown…), but they just stand out from, make a speech and leave. (Which is pretty much what Speaker Johnson did.) All the wannabees who showed up yesterday were dressed in their Trump Uniforms. A dark suit and red tie. It was hilarious, almost like a club or frat mixer. Funny, too, was that Speaker Johnson didn't get the memo and had the wrong tie. Up to yesterday, Eric Trump was the only Trump family member who drew the short straw and had to show up in court to show support for his dad. Though yesterday, finally, another Trump family member popped in, Eric's wife Lara. What made that so notable is that she is, of course, the newly appointed co-chair of the Republican National Committee - and it took her to yesterday (!!) to finally get there to show support to a) her father-in-law and b) the presumptive presidential nominee of the political party he helped make her co-chair of. For all the VP wannabees and other politicians who have made their guest appearance at the courthouse and make their outraged statements about the trial, they almost all screw up in some way. JD Vance (R-OH) described Trump as "lonely." (Which is just want you want for your party's presidential candidate…not to mention, how on earth is a former president and your party's presumptive presidential nominee "lonely"?? It seems to suggest, with good reason, that he really doesn't have friends, and no one wants to be tarnished by this trial.) Vivek Ramaswamy, in his attempt to do his Ramaswamy swagger, screwed up and called Trump a "sham politician" - before correcting himself to say he meant it was a sham trial. (It was hard to know if that was a Freudian slip or projection about himself. Or perhaps the rare Daily Double.) Speaker Johnson -- who wears his religion and deep morality on every sleeve, pant leg, shirt pocket and jacket lapel -- was put in the awkward position of saying how Trump was a friend he supported fully… while at the courthouse where his "friend he supported fully" was on trial for sleeping with a porn actress while his wife had just given birth -- before Johnson ran away. Though my favorite -- even more than Ramaswamy's "sham politician" -- was Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) smearing the jury as being made up of "supposed Americans." Pathetic for the smear, and reprehensible for trying to suggest that all jurors are, of course, required to be American citizens. But then, being Tommy Tuberville (a supposed American, for all we know), he might be ignorant of that. Almost more to the point, what is most fascinating is that while all these wannabees and supporters expressed their support and outrage at the sham politician - sorry, I mean trial -- not one of them said that they thought Trump was innocent of all the charges or even just not proven guilty by the prosecution beyond a shadow of a doubt -- or that every witness was lying under oath, and all the documents are untrue -- just that there shouldn't be a trial. And this doesn't even touch on the fascination that Trump has been witnessed editing statements for some of those outside being "outraged" and slamming witnesses and the jury -- which is a violation of Trump's gag order, since he is not allowed to direct others to violate it for him. This includes mental giant Tuberville literally saying he was there to help violate the gag order, and Speaker Johnson attacking the Judge's daughter. (Indeed, as legal experts have noted, if D.A. Alvin Bragg wants to subpoena any of them, or them all, into a gag order violation hearing, he can.) But most fascinating of all is that none of these people who are showing up outside the courthouse or deign to go inside - including just one of Trump's five children - for all the attention they're trying to get in front of the cameras, really matter to the jury. Indeed, as many legal experts have noted, there is only one person that a jury will really care about here, showing support, believing that Trump has been wrongly accused and proudly standing by him - and that's the person who is most notable by her absence. His wife. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|