I had an entirely different view of Judge Marchand's decision to delay the sentencing of Trump. I felt he was considering democracy and the people. He doesn't want to influence the election and give Trump's followers a reason to blame his loss on a political prosecution. If Trump wins, then any sentence will be ignored, and if he loses, the sentencing for the crime will be his fate. This was a crime against the people and the people are benefited, it seems to me, by not using the criminal prosecution as a tool at the polls.
I agree, " I felt he was considering democracy and the people." That's what I tried to say.
"It is difficult to imagine a defendant less deserving of the presumption of fairness and avoidance of the appearance of bias than Donald Trump. And yet, Judge Merchan granted Trump those benefits not because Trump deserved them, but because Judge Merchan believed that the public did."
"By delaying Trump's sentencing, Judge Merchan removed claims and counterclaims of election interference, bias, and unfairness that would have inevitably followed any sentencing decision by Judge Merchan. Trump will stand before Judge Merchan in a sentencing hearing, but not at a time that might disrupt an already contentious election. Judge Merchan made that point in his order continuing the hearing."
Still, you seemed frustrated, as I am sure millions of Harris supporters feel, as well. I was simply saying that I didn't feel any frustration notwithstanding the judge certainly could have decided to sentence him before the election. The pig deserves it, of course, but holding him (and his cohorts) responsible at the ballot box is the pre-condition for locking him in prison. It's the only way we can be rid of him. For good. I am so sick of his face and his voice and his babbling.
I saw a third thing: that any sentence would be appealed and not adjudicated until after the election anyway, making its effect less significant.
Robert's advice is the best, and we should be motivated by it: "Today, we are in precisely the same position we were before Judge Merchan’s decision: Holding Trump accountable for his crimes requires defeating him at the ballot box." And we know it must be an overwhelming defeat.
Also maddening is yesterday's endorsement of the Republican nominee by the Fraternal Order of Police. So much for "Law and Order."
I don't know that it's the majority of police, but it certainly appears to be the leadership of the organization that represents them. It's inexplicable that they could claim to stand for law and order and that they protect law-abiding citizens while endorsing one of the most law-deriding people in modern history.
Yes! And I just can’t understand why every police chief in the country isn’t demanding that gun laws be strengthened to reduce the number of incidences where they are out-gunned or shot during traffic stops or responding to domestic abuse calls.
Sadly, many cops, especially in urban areas, have learned to see their job as controlling people instead of protecting them. This leads easily to a more fascist attitude.
Exactly! Well said. I grew up being told if I were lost or needed help I should "find a policeman" (they were mostly men then) and when I became a teenager one of my first experiences with the police was negative... probably because, being a teen, I looked like "a hippie" to them. Attitudes were already changing. We need a reset and somehow it needs to involve the upper echelon of the police.
Y'know? I'd like to see VP Harris commit to creating a blue ribbon commission to study policing practices, and recommend improvements to our complex system of justice that seems to ensnare everyone but the most deserving.
Gina -- I would agree. Though I'm certain there are many who go into policing to protect and serve, there are also many who go into it for the power of being able to control others via sanctioned violence. I believe many ex-military (where they get a tast for it?) join police ranks. It would not surprise me that police support trump because they know he will let them use all the force they want. It is not about law and order at all.
I agree. Any sentence would be used to rile up Trump's base, and further the lie that this was a political prosecution. After he loses the election, Judge Merchan can sentence him to actual jail time for being such an unrepentant a**hole in court.
I lean this way. I feel like if we always avoid anything that can be used to claim unfairness we may as well curl up in a corner. One of the worst approaches the Ds used up to recently was to avoid taking positive firm actions because the Rs might weaponize it, or worse yet might do it themselves as soon as they could, which pretended they wouldn't already do anything they could regardless of any precedents. I'd like to think there were more and better reasons.
She's got a tough prosecutorial, no-nonsense personality that is still appealing. No mean feat to pull off. I also like her centrist-appearing policies: she's positioning herself as "Hard-Headed Help" for everyday Americans. I think a lot of centrists have been/are turned off by the more bleeding-heart liberal approaches of the past (although I think that many of them have worked brilliantly over the last 40-50 years--civil rights, affirmative action for Blacks and women...). Today's disaffected electorate needs to hear a Democrat talk about hard facts--inflation, greedflation, middle-class tax cuts, help for small businesses, student loan forgiveness, hard-headed but fair border policies, etc. And Harris is doing that.
Maybe so, that they continue to claim witch hunt, but Judge Merchan's super-fair decision takes the wind out of their sails. They can't screech about "how unfair the justice system is" with any pointed current example.
The problem is, they don't need a "pointed current example" in order to keep screaming witch hunt. They just do it anyway - throwing ketchup at the wall to see what sticks. :-/ Or just to make noise.
I was all atwitter when I first read the headline, calmed down a bit after reading Merchan's reasoning, and relieved when I heard Andrew Weismann's take that this keeps it out of SCOTUS before the election. Still maddening but I understand the madness 😉 But I don't understand the madness of the FOP. Dimwits.
Okay, wow. I'm going to have to read that one. I like Weismann anyway. So that makes lots of sense to me: Sentencing after the election prevents the SCOTUS from getting their greasy (apparently very well greased) hands off of it. I'm getting a nice satisfied feeling out of that one, in fact.
I wrote a comment on the sentencing before I read the comments above, so I was also speculating on other reasons... from the point of view of the jury. Question: Has the sentence been decided and just needs to be announced or has it not been determined? I think the reasoning in these things is a complex soup with all the parts flavoring each other.
With respect to the Fraternal Order of Police, I had not heard that yet, and am disappointed and disgusted but not surprised. Police reforms should probably be added to the long wish list for a Harris administration to address. How about a national list of officers released from duty due to violations and civilian complaints?
I too, was appalled that over 300,000 officers signed onto supporting Trump. It shows all of us that they are racists and fascists. They have collectively brought shame to their badges and shame to the oath they took to “protect and serve”. Truly, they should never question as to why they cannot be trusted.
FOP has a lofty mission statement which seems to be immediately contradicted by their endorsement of tffg in its first phrase, "To support and defend the Constitution of the United States; [...]" and undercuts their last phrase, "[...] and thus more firmly to establish the confidence of the public in the service dedicated to the protection of life and property."
The whole statement is:
"We, the law enforcement officers of the United States [...], do hereby associate the several lodges we represent and the members thereof for the following purposes:
To support and defend the Constitution of the United States; to inculcate loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America; to promote and foster the enforcement of law and order; to improve the individual and collective proficiency of our members in the performance of their duties; to encourage fraternal, educational, charitable and social activities among law enforcement officers; to advocate and strive for uniform application of the civil service merit system for appointment and promotion; to support the improvement of the standard of living and working conditions of the law enforcement profession through every legal and ethical means available; to create and maintain tradition of esprit de corps insuring fidelity to duty under all conditions and circumstances; to cultivate a spirit of fraternalism and mutual helpfulness among our members and the people we serve; to increase the efficiency of the law enforcement profession and thus more firmly to establish the confidence of the public in the service dedicated to the protection of life and property."
When Trump loses, he will launch appeals up the proverbial kazoo. “Reasonable” people will argue that he shouldn’t be punished until the appeals are decided … ultimately.
After he loses, I'm happy for him to take ten years and bankrupt the rest of his questionable "fortune" (and maybe put a dent in Putin's, too) in appeal after appeal after appeal, culminating when he is 88 years old in a sentence.
I too reacted with the frustration that Robert describes. But on reflection, I parsed out Judge Merchan’s decision much as you have, Janet. It occurs to me on further reflection that the delayed sentencing can help put a stop to Stop the Steal 2.0 after Election Day.
The second thing is about the media, which has always sold papers with bad or titillating news. Only rarely has hope sold papers. Trump is the train wreck everyone wants to watch. Attacking him seems so .... unamerican.
“Maddening!” That is the word that speaks to both Judge Marchan’s decision and the failed journalism we discerning citizens must wrestle with on this September day. I looked up the definition to completely comprehend the moment - “extremely annoying, infuriating.” A host of similar words appeared as well - “exasperating,” “irritating,” “troublesome,” “vexing,” “aggravating,” “provoking,” and more.
Choose your adjective. Be all of these things. Scream into a bag. But, once again focus on the advice and action we have heard for the past four years and longer “no one is coming to save us.” Our resolve must remain steadfast to get out the vote - GOTV!!
Yesterday we were vexed, annoyed, and infuriated by yet another court ruling - that North Carolina must remove Robert Kennedy’s name from their ballot which means they must reprint the ballot in these last innings of the game.
Let’s not allow these maddening events to distract us from the one goal and prize we must claim on November 5, a victory at the ballot box. Let’s embrace our faith in “democracy- for, by, and of the people.” Let’s double down on our commitment to justice for all.
We have come this far. Let’s march on to win and win big. We must!
My initial expletive-laden reaction was tempered almost immediately by my respect for Judge Merchan. I trust his judgment, and while I would like to see the Convicted Felon behind bars, it's up to the voters to remove the obstacle that could allow him to serve out his remaining miserable years in the Big House instead of the White House.
My prediction: Even though Trump has been found guilty, his sentence will involve ‘punishments’ short of jail time. Judge Merchan, ever hung up about precedents, will not want to be the first to put a Presidental candidate/ex-President in jail with “common criminals”.
I also think that Robert has the answer to his question at the end:
“Why?” Why does the media believe it is their role to filter and correct Trump's incoherence? The answer to that question will vex historians for decades and centuries to come."
- No it won't!
"In the absence of a satisfying or clear answer to that question, my default assumption is that the major media sees Trump as good for business, even if he is bad for democracy. Profit über alles. Shame on them."
- GREED! What many times is the end of all good things!
My initial reaction to Merchan's decision was "Boo hiss," but I quickly came to reason that he wisely averted distracting controversy before the election, as Robert explains.
What about Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Mike Pence today, along with 88 Tycoons, including Rupe's son? And Goldman Sachs? That's all big stuff made for ads down the stretch. I can't wait to see Kamala sprint to the finish!
Yes, looking forward to the critical necessity of defeating Trump and MAGA Republicans, this week’s endorsements of Kamala Harris by Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Big Business leaders was a seismic expansion of the permission structure for Republicans and Independents to vote for Democrats in November.
What shocked me—in a really good way—was Liz Cheney’s comment about Trump and JD Vance: “This is my diplomatic way of saying it. They’re misogynistic pigs…women around this country…we’ve had enough.”
.... this week’s endorsements of Kamala Harris by Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Big Business leaders was a seismic expansion of the permission structure for Republicans and Independents to vote for Democrats in November.
⬆️
I certainly won't look a gift horse in the mouth, but I wonder how far this "permission structure" extends beyond voting for Kamala Harris. Will they also vote against the Trump acolytes who scuttled the border bill on Trump's say so? Or against that crazy man, Mark Robinson, who is running on the GOP ticket for Governor of NC?
Are we going to see a huge influx of big money GOP donors into key swing state Senate races to make sure that we don't have a Democratic trifecta? We still have our work cut out for us.
The GOP have done such an excellent job of villifying Democrats over the years that I do question the motives of some of the people who are just now coming out against Trump. Are they trying to set us up for a dysfunctional legislature to ensure that Kamala Harris is an ineffective one-term president giving the GOP time to re-group? It's a shame that these folks couldn't have come to this realization before the primaries put so many MAGA crazies on the Novemer ballot!!
We can't take our foot off the gas!!
In yesterday's column by Jessica Craven a reader suggested several grassroots groups working in MT that could improve Tester's chances to retain his seat. This part of a comment posted by Anne Cauman:
...Tester has plenty of money but there is an enormous need to fund groups on the ground.
Martha Laning of SPAN (State Party Advancement Network) says there are 3 states with key races where the national Democrats are putting in little or no money into state Democratic parties (the money is going to Presidential Swing States). According to SPAN, the state Democratic parties particularly in need are Alaska, Montana, and Ohio. SPAN has a link for all three states. Given that Sherrod Brown appears to be doing much better than Tester and the AK race is a Congressional one, I think Montana is the priority (you can customize your donation) https://secure.actblue.com/donate/span-climateaction
“I do question the motives of some of the people who are just now coming out against Trump. Are they trying to set us up for a dysfunctional legislature to ensure that Kamala Harris is an ineffective one-term president giving the GOP time to re-group? It's a shame that these folks couldn't have come to this realization before the primaries put so many MAGA crazies on the November ballot!!“
I listened to the whole hour of Liz Cheney’s talk. I recommend that others listen to it as well. She urged voting against all MAGA Republicans. She endorsed Colin Allred for Senate in Texas. She spoke about the need to change our politics so that we can debate issues and not attack each other, and she noted that she had been guilty of that too. I think this is a moment to not only do everything in our power to save our democracy, but to give those on the other side credit for their work to save our democracy. We need them. The only way we’re going to survive is to get past the long era of demonization of political opponents. The GOP, starting with Gingrich, are almost solely responsible for this state of affairs, but when Republicans of good will step forward to try to change things I think we need to give them credit and welcome their efforts. Liz Cheney has showed tremendous courage and was willing to give up her political career to help save our democracy. We don’t do ourselves any favors by imagining ulterior motives. As for the GOP primaries, I think Cheney and other Republicans who are supporting Harris know that the GOP is too far gone to affect the primaries. After all, Liz lost her primary election. How effective could she be at that level?
Good news that. I respect Liz Cheney immensely even though I didsagree with ALL her policy decisions.
However, I don't have the same confidence in any of the "Business Leaders" who voted for Trump in 2020 because they liked his tax cuts. I don't know how many of the "country club" republicans voted for Trump in 2020, but I know he got votes beyond his MAGA base for sure.
I share your view of Liz Cheney completely. The “business leaders” and country club Republicans infuriate me to no end. But if a group of them are doing the right thing this time, I’ll take it.
I feel resonant with what both of you are saying. There are still a few Rs motivated by the right things and a warm thanks is warranted even if not all of them are exactly looking for a warm embrace since when this is all over they'll go right back to their fundamentally conservative views (Liz Cheney who I respect immensely as a human, did vote with 45 something like 95% of the time while in office). I don't think it hurts one bit however to keep a wary eye on ulterior motives because if we'd been that wary 30 years ago we might have counteracted Mitch McConnell's strategy of filling lower court seats with increasingly right wing judges. Being alert isn't the same as adopting a combative rather than cooperative pose. In general, I expect those late to the bandwagon to be the first to hop off.
We need to be pragmatic and rescue our democracy at this moment when it is in such peril. We don't have to have 100% agreement on everything--just to feel that we are within the pale of reasonableness and shared love for our country. As Michelle Obama said, don't hold out for a Goldilocks solution, where everything has to be absolutely perfect before you'll support it. That ain't gonna happen.
I whole-heartedly agree, Hopehappens. I yearn for a return to genuine bi-partisanship, when lawmakers routinely crossed the aisle to either support their constituencies or to vote on ethical and moral principles.
Thank you for this enormously valuable analysis and guidance. I have given to Tester's campaign but have thought there must be more I could do from half-way across the continent. I will give to the ground games in Montana this weekend and urge others to do so.
I also raise a forlorn-voice hope for Arizona. We have some of the worst of the MAGA eight Congressional representatives. Yet no one at the national level is raising up these contests or supporting them in any meaningful way. No one nationally is even talking about them. My own congressional rep is Eli Crane (R-AZ), whose newsletter is entitled One in the Chamber and whose newsletter graphic is an AK-47. A nice person, Jonathan Nez, is the Democrat running against him. If anyone here can send Jonathan even $5, it would be great for America.
I actually would like to see fewer people use the word “misogyny” to describe the continuous insults to women by Republican candidates. It sounds old-fashioned and at the same time overly technical. There are ways to get that point across that would be heard more clearly by a wider audience. I laughed at Cheney saying “they are misogynistic pigs“ because it harkens back to the long ago time this complaint was first made. But I think it would have been more powerful if she said “They keep disrespecting us and we’ve had enough!”
Actually, I think your mention of the word “misogyny” is… wow… an astute observation!
I remember being a young teenaged girl and not knowing what that meant. It sounded so technical (to use your word), I was intimidated and avoided it (that is until I met some misogynistic assholes and went on to read the book: Men who hate women and the women who love them. (Dr Susan Forward)).
Sweet Jesus in the foothills, please let us not allow our young people to not know exactly what we are saying when we are calling the Republican candidates out for their hateful speech toward women. Say it clear. Keep it simple. “They keep disrespecting us and we’ve had enough!”
Where are the links to articles about big business leaders endorsing Harris? I knew about Goldman Sachs statement that her plan for the economy is positive while the other side's plan would cause massive layoffs and a recession. But, who are the others?
"What about Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Mike Pence today, along with 88 Tycoons, including Rupe's son? And Goldman Sachs? That's all big stuff made for ads down the stretch."
I don't see that as a cause for celebration at all, for two reasons:
If truly evil people like Dick Cheney, Mike Pence, Liz Cheney, and Lachlan Murdoch are prepared to endorse Harris (rather than simply not endorse Trump), then clearly she's seen as totally safe and well in the capitalist bag ... not very progressive or liberal, what?? Not where I want my Democratic candidate to be.
And secondly, the millions of mouth-breathing MAGA rubes out there might simply say, "See, Harris is in the bag for the WASP ruling class, the capitalists, and the transnational globalists ... we have to vote Trump to defeat this Zionist cabal!". And they will have a pretty good point!
I prefer Harris to defeat Trump, who could not, but I don't hold my breath hoping she would do anything progressive much. She's mainstream safe party machine like Uncle Joe ... she isn't AOC.
It was James Murdoch (family rebel) not Lachlan who endorsed Harris. I don't agree with Liz Cheney's political views but honor her commitment to democracy. Her dad is guilty of war crimes, but if his endorsement gives us even a handful of old school GOP votes, he has my thanks.
As to what is "progressive" or the new "Liberal" and what is the mainstream of American sentiment, I refer you to Michael Moore:
Our planet is in the hands of those who are committing self immolation. I believe VP Harris understands that and she is the latest best hope to help on that front. I don't really see much daylight between Harris, Joe and AOC on that subject. And in the grand scheme and scope of history, isn't that all that really matters? Having a place to live?
AOC isn’t running. IMO, right now if Harris can defeat trump, we lay the ground work for progressive change and yet there is a big freakin but- but trump. If he get’s in you will see your/our/my progressive hopes, dreams, and desires go right out the window. You as much as said that, TY, at the same time whether or not our candidate is progressive enough is not our fight right now. We are saving democracy so we can get on to the business of … democracy.
Excellent comments all. For the next 60 days and immediately after we have to keep our focus on defeating Trump and electing Harris-Walz. Nothing else matters as much because if the door swings the other way and Trump wins all of our geese -- be they moderate, conservative, progressives -- are cooked, along with the rights and lives of millions of people in the USA and around the world who don't give a damn about party politics.
Worse yet Dr. White, trump would likely not remain as POTUS long with the cognitive decline now so evident. This means JD Vance takes over. Fathom that scenario!
Ian, let’s not misjudge at this crucial moment in our country’s history. How about stepping back from such unnecessary projections into a future with the Harris-Walz team when we already have an abundance of deceit, malfeasance, and vulgar divisiveness by TFG.
I'm not pulling an endorsement by Pence up on a search. Where or when did that happen? He's not on the business letter. I'm mainly getting McCain's son, Judge Luttig and the Cheneys. Anyone have a link? I hate to spread something without seeing it first.
I write to note that I forwarded a letter to the Harris campaign I recently had written to ABC’s debate co-moderators, wherein I had submitted 1) that the questions have to be tougher, 2) that candidates have to be able to square their campaign rhetoric with facts, 3) that they have to be stopped when they’re not answering the question, and 4) that they have to be called out when their answers contradict the facts.
To be clear, while I don’t expect my letter to exert much (if any) impact on the debate co-moderators, I forwarded my letter to Harris because I do believe she could intervene where the co-moderators fail to meet their obligation to voters. For example, when Trump doesn’t answer a question and the next one is directed to Harris, she could premise her remarks by succinctly calling attention to Trump’s failure to answer the previous question, briefly answering it herself, then proceeding to the question directed to her. Similarly, and selectively, when Trump’s answer to a question is disconnected from verifiable facts, once it’s Harris’s turn to speak, she concisely could call out the discrepancy and counter with an explanation that can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence prior to turning to the question directed to her.
My point, while I agree we can’t bank on major media to do its job, is that we can offer thoughts to our candidates as to how they can step in to expose deceptions and reveal verifiable truths.
Barbara, I especially like #3 and #4. But I have no expectation that the moderators will be able to exercise any such controls over Trump. It has never happened. He won't cooperate.
Trump will do what he always does. Rant, ramble and accuse. Word salad stream of conscious fabrications.
My advice to VP Harris is for her to largely ignore him. She could start every speaking opportunity with simply: "Donald, you lie for a living. You just make stuff up. You always have." And then make a presentation that paints a picture of an improved America.
This will not be a "debate". It is a show. It is theater. It is free advertising or career threatening TV.
Oh how I wish it were different. I wish there could be two people standing there offering differing visions of governance - two people that had integrity - just different political philosophies. I wish your suggestions were used.
But such is not the case. Trump is Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Putin, Joseph McCarthy and Jim Jones all rolled into one disgusting disrespectful devil creature. We can't debate with the devil. We can just push it back down where it came from.
Morning Bill. As stated, I, too, have no expectations the co-moderators will follow any of my proposals. Still, I do stand by my conviction, with Harris at the podium, that viewers at large don’t have to wait, as they did in June, until after the debate for the release of deceptions and distortions from real-time fact checkers.
The trouble is Trump lies so rapidly and fact checking takes so much more time that she would expend her valuable time on responding to him. I do agree with the tactic of calling it out but unless she can pierce the lie in a single sentence or two at most, she ought to simply stick to a menu of snappy dismissives (including looking into the camera and telling the audience "All lies - read the fact checks after this") and answer the question posed. If she lets herself get side tracked the post debate autopsies will jump on her for not answering the questions, while giving a pass to 45's failures to do so.
I believe a huge part of Biden's trouble in his debate was due to trying to respond to 45's lies. It takes a quarter the time to toss out a lie as it does to correct it with proofs. It's an actual tactic to keep the other side on the back foot - "when you're explaining you're losing". It's theater but we hope, with her, it will be theater with teeth and truth so let the contrast speak for itself.
I hope she is willing to publicly reprimand him if he keeps heckling her when it's her turn to speak, which he did during Biden's answers. I also hope she calls "time" and insists he's returned to his podium if he looms over her like he did with Hillary. His supporters are excited by his bullying but if it were called out with consequences they might be suppressed some as we saw when the J6 insurrectionist rioters were brought to justice.
Yehawes, I wholly agree that Harris must “pierce the lie in a single sentence or two.” Hence my use of such adverbs as “succinctly,” “briefly,” “selectively,” and “concisely” in my original posting.
Yes, and best of all if she can do it simply by stating a truth as part of her own response, such as stating the crime statistics after he's ranted that we are all being overcome by criminals. Personally, I'm not just hoping for her to do well but for him to completely disgrace himself on stage. It's nice when one can hope for things that are actually likely, no?
Yehawes, Clearly, you and I are on the same page. Still, I would note, were Harris, on the heels of Trump’s lies, to be asked an unrelated question, I would hope she, first, albeit concisely, expose the deceit prior to replying to the question addressed to her.
Kamala Harris is not an ordinary candidate. If she adopts Barbara Jo’s recommendations, she could seem “too tough” (a burden only women bear) and alienate some middle-of-the-road voters.
It shouldn’t be that way, but in the campaign Kamala Harris must be more the realist than the liberal moralist.
And yet another burden borne unfairly by women is the requirement not to be seen as too weak, so there you go. I think she'd do best to call it, waste none of her time correcting it although my heaven will have come if she let drop just one "that was just nonsense" or better yet "gibberish" and then set out her facts in her business like manner. I don't think many would see that as liberal moralist, too tough, too weak... and those who would see it that way won't ever see her in any positive light anyway. Those are the lost.
Michael, I would submit how Harris is regarded, in large part, would depend on her tone. I suggest some combination of the “happy warrior” combined with a deeply felt desire to connect with everyday people’s interests and concerns.
There are alternative media which will fact check real time and Harris has an experienced team and the big advantage she has is her prosecuting experience of building a case. Trump has specific attack points against Harris but she has a truck load of things against Trump. She needs to keep smiling and be light and not get rattled. She will be the best person we have ever seen debating Trump .
Stephen, Similar to the real-time fact checkers when Trump and Biden debated in June, the release of their data for broad public consumption will be blocked off until after the debate. Hence our reliance on Harris during the debate.
Not to be a downer but when the alternative media fact checks in real time - his supporters will be engaged with and listening to far right shows that spew alternative facts.
I agree, Stephen. Let the MAGA people go. Nothing that anyone can say will sway them. But the independents, the real Republicans, the youth, the Latinos, young Black men...that's who we need to save our democracy.
My wish for the debate Sept 10 : That Harris continues to sweep Trump's lies and incoherences aside with a few choice words, takes advantage of her opponent's muted mike, then turns directly to us the voters to address the subject of the question. If she falls into the trap of bickering with Trump (as Biden tragically did in the first debate), it will be a lost cause. When it is Trump's turn, he'll have plenty of time to sabotage himself. She just has to project Presidential confidence, energy and coherence as she has managed to do so impressively up until now.
As Robert writes: "It is difficult to fault Judge Merchan’s reasoning, even though the opposite outcome would have been equally reasonable." Merchan was in an impossible situation. He's a highly respected and experienced jurist who had spent a year in the scorching kleig light of MAGA land. Where every decision, reasonable or not, was subject to a napalm bombardment from Fox and similar running dogs. Impossible. So who am I not to find his ruling OK. He's never done anything but the best he can do when the subject is an out-of-control megalomaniac.
Robert has shared: "Trump has corrupted the Court by manipulating—in bad faith—the constitutional mechanisms for appointing justices. " Certainly true. But impossible without the really evil dark forces lurking behind the throne. The master manipulator Mitch McConnell should always be acknowledged as the prime mover. Behind him stood the evil and smarmy Federalist Society with the infamous Leonard Leo at the helm. Never forget: McConnell and Leo. The evil twins. Trump's brains.
With respect to the upcoming debate, I do feel Ms Harris will be able to hold her own just fine. One thing bothers me though. There has been a lot of negotiations about whether the microphones should be muted when the other candidate speaks. That could be a toss up with respect to how the debate goes. However, what really bothered me about the Biden/Trump debate was that Trump consistently, after being asked a new question, go back to try to add more to whatever answer he had given before. I think that is a complete failure on the part of the debate moderators. They should have interrupted The Convicted Felon and Rapist and tell him that the debate had moved on and that he should address the current question being asked of him. I hope they take more control this time.
I so appreciate your continued analysis of how insanely inept MSM is in covering these dangerous times. Greg Sargent interviews a Prof from U Chicago (who used to be a journalist in DC) who provides some great insight: the media’s preference for “directing” versus “documenting”. A podcast worth your time: https://thedsrnetwork.com/trumps-mental-state-just-got-visibly-worse-will-the-media-say-so
Great post again ... although you have far more faith in the importance of Democrats (and other people of good will) maintaining a belief in the rule of law than I can sustain.
It is what moderate, intelligent, and educated people say all the time, when a rich or powerful person skates because of a corrupt, complicit, or incompetent court ruling - but boy it is wearing really thin.
Trump (and about 99% of his partners in crime) has not faced a serious consequence for either the insurrection and attempted coup, or even the blatantly clear documents case. No one in nearly four years has laid a finger on him ... and we are supposed to retain a belief in the rule of law? It is a big ask, and I think an increasingly unreasonable one.
Merrick Garland has sat on his hands for years, and Joe Biden has done nothing obvious to prosecute the case ... it is like all that awful stuff between Nov 2020 and Jan 2021 didn't happen, or is just routine politics, or all inside the beltway piffle. Talk about buying the MAGA talking points!
So what does the delay in sentencing mean? If the judge was/is planning to jail Trump (as he definitely should), then that would seem a "good" reason to delay the sentencing date. But if Trump wins the election, can you see the judge still trying to jail Trump? Of course not ... such a ruling wouldn't last a week.
If Trump loses the election, then he's toast pretty-well everywhere I guess. He'll spend his retirement in appellate courts, if not jail, and hand over big money to lawyers with both hands. Good.
Ellen here--Ian, I'm with you. I'm feeling completely let down by the justice system in our country. It is beyond understanding how Trump has avoided jail time for inciting the insurrection on Jan. 6th. He is a traitor who attempted to overthrow the United States government and steal an election, He hasn't been held to account and it remains to be seen if he will be. Trump is gaming the system quite successfully in my opinion.
Yesterday was a tough day to keep my spirits up. Again, I hope blue states are taking note of what is happening in states where craziness reigns supreme.
Just yesterday:
Texas women were told if they travel out of state to access healthcare legal in that other state, Texas should seize their medical records.
Texas teachers were told they must not invite nonpartisan outside speakers to talk about voter registration.
Texas counties were told they should not make it easier for unregistered eligible voters to register.
The good news is one needn’t worry about gun purchasing restrictions.
I asked Marc Elias (Democracy Docket) what can be done to get Federal Marshalls to Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Florida for voter protection. Since I donate to them every month I am on special mailing lists. A friend just got her parents (who are Black) out of Florida. Another couple I know, also Black, just got their parents out of Texas.
WOW. That people must move in order to make their voices heard/their health card decisions respected ........ I'd say it's beyond belief, and yet here we are.
Isn't it awful how the MSM is failing us? This from HCR's letter from today, she quotes the Russian propagandists as instructing, "At the same time, you should continuously repeat that this is what is really happening, but the official media will never tell you about it or show it to you.” And that's believable because the MSM isn't doing its job! Thank you Substack for existing and providing this all so important platform. Thank you Robert for your diligence and continually smart take on our world.
When I read “but the official media will never tell you about it or show it to you,” I internally shouted YES! The Russian propagandists are right about that point (unfortunately). These days, one often needs to scour several sources in order to get a decent picture of what’s going on.
He's such a swinger. Can you imagine, in this day and age, actually saying as Trump did and as Robert relates: "And in a breath-taking admission, he said he did assault one of his accusers because, “[S]he would not have been the chosen one.” That defense repeats his claim that he did not sexually assault E. Jean Carrol because “She’s not my type.”" This is 2024. How in heaven's name can a man convicted of raping his victim circle right back around to the topic and re-fight the fight he lost? Are you crazy??
That was actually a misquote in the newseltter. As I commented elsewhere here, Trump went through a long story about how this all took place on a flight with many people around and it "couldn't have happened, it didn't happen and she would not have been the chosen one."
So, I quoted Trump's statement word-for-word, omitting the rambling preface, which I indicated by using the parenthetical to indicate "[S]he" was modified to begin the sentence. How is that a misquote?
Standing alone, Judge Merchan's decision, as you note, makes good sense in upholding the rule of law. In the context of the other 5 cases that involve the failed insurrectionist, including his failure thus far to pay the judgements in the two civil cases, yesterday's decision looks like just one more case of the legal system being abused to protect a clearly guilty party because of their wealth and notoriety. While no one can reasonably accuse Judge Merchan of anything less than outstanding commitment to principle, he is, in this case, being splashed by the tar that is properly covering the Supreme Court and the much less distinguished Judge in Florida.
Judge Chutkin shows that it is possible to proceed despite the criminal being judged eligible to run for office. Reporters have described merchan’s voice shaking when he faced Trump in court. I think the death threats were too much for him and his family. Trump should’ve been arrested for contempt of court and as it is, he got away with that along with everything else.
There must be accountability for the people doing the bidding for Felon Trump. This is an organnized crime pattern of behavior in need of an immediate intervention. For a broader understanding, the well documented work of Dr Brandy X Lee, psychiatrist, is quite revealing.
The most important line in your commentary today is to enlarge the court if we win the Presidency and simple majorities in the House and Senate. Given four years of corrective action, the public will understand the proper role of the court and be reluctant to support politicians who would turn it back to the currently most partisan court since Roger Taney and the Dred Scott decision which led directly to the Civil War.
I think the decision Judge Marchand made was the right decision because it took away the media frenzy and Trump PR advantage and playing the martyr role. It actually gave us the incentive to vote so we can sentence him right after the election. I have decided not to waste energy or frustration on the media coverage of Trump because I can’t change it but events and endorsements like the Cheney’s make headlines and give Republicans the permission to hold their nose and vote Democratic and probably are more effective. There will be no winners or loser in the debate. There will be two candidates being themselves. That is all we need.
Thank you for your comments and analysis. Your newsletter is doing what traditional news media should be doing. I now only subscribe to publications like yours and to the Guardian.
Two things:
I had an entirely different view of Judge Marchand's decision to delay the sentencing of Trump. I felt he was considering democracy and the people. He doesn't want to influence the election and give Trump's followers a reason to blame his loss on a political prosecution. If Trump wins, then any sentence will be ignored, and if he loses, the sentencing for the crime will be his fate. This was a crime against the people and the people are benefited, it seems to me, by not using the criminal prosecution as a tool at the polls.
I agree, " I felt he was considering democracy and the people." That's what I tried to say.
"It is difficult to imagine a defendant less deserving of the presumption of fairness and avoidance of the appearance of bias than Donald Trump. And yet, Judge Merchan granted Trump those benefits not because Trump deserved them, but because Judge Merchan believed that the public did."
"By delaying Trump's sentencing, Judge Merchan removed claims and counterclaims of election interference, bias, and unfairness that would have inevitably followed any sentencing decision by Judge Merchan. Trump will stand before Judge Merchan in a sentencing hearing, but not at a time that might disrupt an already contentious election. Judge Merchan made that point in his order continuing the hearing."
You did say it. And effectively so.
Still, you seemed frustrated, as I am sure millions of Harris supporters feel, as well. I was simply saying that I didn't feel any frustration notwithstanding the judge certainly could have decided to sentence him before the election. The pig deserves it, of course, but holding him (and his cohorts) responsible at the ballot box is the pre-condition for locking him in prison. It's the only way we can be rid of him. For good. I am so sick of his face and his voice and his babbling.
I saw a third thing: that any sentence would be appealed and not adjudicated until after the election anyway, making its effect less significant.
Robert's advice is the best, and we should be motivated by it: "Today, we are in precisely the same position we were before Judge Merchan’s decision: Holding Trump accountable for his crimes requires defeating him at the ballot box." And we know it must be an overwhelming defeat.
Also maddening is yesterday's endorsement of the Republican nominee by the Fraternal Order of Police. So much for "Law and Order."
Apart from the press/media, the police have, in deference to Trump, done more to lose public trust than any other organization.
I don't know that it's the majority of police, but it certainly appears to be the leadership of the organization that represents them. It's inexplicable that they could claim to stand for law and order and that they protect law-abiding citizens while endorsing one of the most law-deriding people in modern history.
Hard to comprehend, isn't it?
Yes! And I just can’t understand why every police chief in the country isn’t demanding that gun laws be strengthened to reduce the number of incidences where they are out-gunned or shot during traffic stops or responding to domestic abuse calls.
Sadly, many cops, especially in urban areas, have learned to see their job as controlling people instead of protecting them. This leads easily to a more fascist attitude.
Exactly! Well said. I grew up being told if I were lost or needed help I should "find a policeman" (they were mostly men then) and when I became a teenager one of my first experiences with the police was negative... probably because, being a teen, I looked like "a hippie" to them. Attitudes were already changing. We need a reset and somehow it needs to involve the upper echelon of the police.
Y'know? I'd like to see VP Harris commit to creating a blue ribbon commission to study policing practices, and recommend improvements to our complex system of justice that seems to ensnare everyone but the most deserving.
Gina -- I would agree. Though I'm certain there are many who go into policing to protect and serve, there are also many who go into it for the power of being able to control others via sanctioned violence. I believe many ex-military (where they get a tast for it?) join police ranks. It would not surprise me that police support trump because they know he will let them use all the force they want. It is not about law and order at all.
and SCOTUS. Everything trump touches fucking dies!
I agree. Any sentence would be used to rile up Trump's base, and further the lie that this was a political prosecution. After he loses the election, Judge Merchan can sentence him to actual jail time for being such an unrepentant a**hole in court.
It doesn't matter. trump & the trumpettes are already (continuing to) claim "witch hunt."
I lean this way. I feel like if we always avoid anything that can be used to claim unfairness we may as well curl up in a corner. One of the worst approaches the Ds used up to recently was to avoid taking positive firm actions because the Rs might weaponize it, or worse yet might do it themselves as soon as they could, which pretended they wouldn't already do anything they could regardless of any precedents. I'd like to think there were more and better reasons.
Agreed. Too often, Democrats act as though they’re afraid of their shadows.
In that regard, Kamala Harris seems different, though.
She's got a tough prosecutorial, no-nonsense personality that is still appealing. No mean feat to pull off. I also like her centrist-appearing policies: she's positioning herself as "Hard-Headed Help" for everyday Americans. I think a lot of centrists have been/are turned off by the more bleeding-heart liberal approaches of the past (although I think that many of them have worked brilliantly over the last 40-50 years--civil rights, affirmative action for Blacks and women...). Today's disaffected electorate needs to hear a Democrat talk about hard facts--inflation, greedflation, middle-class tax cuts, help for small businesses, student loan forgiveness, hard-headed but fair border policies, etc. And Harris is doing that.
Yehawes, if you are encouraging Democrats to go on the offense, I am with you 100%.
Maybe so, that they continue to claim witch hunt, but Judge Merchan's super-fair decision takes the wind out of their sails. They can't screech about "how unfair the justice system is" with any pointed current example.
The problem is, they don't need a "pointed current example" in order to keep screaming witch hunt. They just do it anyway - throwing ketchup at the wall to see what sticks. :-/ Or just to make noise.
I was all atwitter when I first read the headline, calmed down a bit after reading Merchan's reasoning, and relieved when I heard Andrew Weismann's take that this keeps it out of SCOTUS before the election. Still maddening but I understand the madness 😉 But I don't understand the madness of the FOP. Dimwits.
Okay, wow. I'm going to have to read that one. I like Weismann anyway. So that makes lots of sense to me: Sentencing after the election prevents the SCOTUS from getting their greasy (apparently very well greased) hands off of it. I'm getting a nice satisfied feeling out of that one, in fact.
Andrew Weissman discussed that on Deadline Whitehouse and The Last Word yesterday.
FOP?
Fraternal Order of Police. Also, meant as double entendre 😈
GOP, Just fat fingers.
Nope
Thanks!
Fraternal Order of the Police
Sort of like "Blue Lies Matter"!
I wrote a comment on the sentencing before I read the comments above, so I was also speculating on other reasons... from the point of view of the jury. Question: Has the sentence been decided and just needs to be announced or has it not been determined? I think the reasoning in these things is a complex soup with all the parts flavoring each other.
With respect to the Fraternal Order of Police, I had not heard that yet, and am disappointed and disgusted but not surprised. Police reforms should probably be added to the long wish list for a Harris administration to address. How about a national list of officers released from duty due to violations and civilian complaints?
I too, was appalled that over 300,000 officers signed onto supporting Trump. It shows all of us that they are racists and fascists. They have collectively brought shame to their badges and shame to the oath they took to “protect and serve”. Truly, they should never question as to why they cannot be trusted.
FOP has a lofty mission statement which seems to be immediately contradicted by their endorsement of tffg in its first phrase, "To support and defend the Constitution of the United States; [...]" and undercuts their last phrase, "[...] and thus more firmly to establish the confidence of the public in the service dedicated to the protection of life and property."
The whole statement is:
"We, the law enforcement officers of the United States [...], do hereby associate the several lodges we represent and the members thereof for the following purposes:
To support and defend the Constitution of the United States; to inculcate loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America; to promote and foster the enforcement of law and order; to improve the individual and collective proficiency of our members in the performance of their duties; to encourage fraternal, educational, charitable and social activities among law enforcement officers; to advocate and strive for uniform application of the civil service merit system for appointment and promotion; to support the improvement of the standard of living and working conditions of the law enforcement profession through every legal and ethical means available; to create and maintain tradition of esprit de corps insuring fidelity to duty under all conditions and circumstances; to cultivate a spirit of fraternalism and mutual helpfulness among our members and the people we serve; to increase the efficiency of the law enforcement profession and thus more firmly to establish the confidence of the public in the service dedicated to the protection of life and property."
When Trump loses, the judge will be free to throw the book at him. A nice, big, heavy law book.
Let us make it so!
Exactly my first thought.
When Trump loses, he will launch appeals up the proverbial kazoo. “Reasonable” people will argue that he shouldn’t be punished until the appeals are decided … ultimately.
After he loses, I'm happy for him to take ten years and bankrupt the rest of his questionable "fortune" (and maybe put a dent in Putin's, too) in appeal after appeal after appeal, culminating when he is 88 years old in a sentence.
He’ll die before the appeals are exhausted. He has virtually infinite resources.
He won’t serve his sentence while appeals are pending. That’s always the case in criminal cases
I too reacted with the frustration that Robert describes. But on reflection, I parsed out Judge Merchan’s decision much as you have, Janet. It occurs to me on further reflection that the delayed sentencing can help put a stop to Stop the Steal 2.0 after Election Day.
In what way?
A prison sentence can help reframe Stop the Steal 2.0 as "I don't want to go to jail."
The second thing is about the media, which has always sold papers with bad or titillating news. Only rarely has hope sold papers. Trump is the train wreck everyone wants to watch. Attacking him seems so .... unamerican.
“Maddening!” That is the word that speaks to both Judge Marchan’s decision and the failed journalism we discerning citizens must wrestle with on this September day. I looked up the definition to completely comprehend the moment - “extremely annoying, infuriating.” A host of similar words appeared as well - “exasperating,” “irritating,” “troublesome,” “vexing,” “aggravating,” “provoking,” and more.
Choose your adjective. Be all of these things. Scream into a bag. But, once again focus on the advice and action we have heard for the past four years and longer “no one is coming to save us.” Our resolve must remain steadfast to get out the vote - GOTV!!
Yesterday we were vexed, annoyed, and infuriated by yet another court ruling - that North Carolina must remove Robert Kennedy’s name from their ballot which means they must reprint the ballot in these last innings of the game.
https://www.wunc.org/politics/2024-09-06/rfk-ballot-appeals-court-election-republican-trump
Let’s not allow these maddening events to distract us from the one goal and prize we must claim on November 5, a victory at the ballot box. Let’s embrace our faith in “democracy- for, by, and of the people.” Let’s double down on our commitment to justice for all.
We have come this far. Let’s march on to win and win big. We must!
Peace be with each and every reader. We will win!
Sometimes you get tired of the train wreck and want to see something uplifting
So true. I want to see the train hauled off to the junk yard.
Actually, seeing train wrecks, our any kind of wreck, honestly, has *never* been appealing to me.
yes, and therefore Thank you Robert for your FABULOUS and regular use of your telescope to see and love the bigger picture!
My initial expletive-laden reaction was tempered almost immediately by my respect for Judge Merchan. I trust his judgment, and while I would like to see the Convicted Felon behind bars, it's up to the voters to remove the obstacle that could allow him to serve out his remaining miserable years in the Big House instead of the White House.
My prediction: Even though Trump has been found guilty, his sentence will involve ‘punishments’ short of jail time. Judge Merchan, ever hung up about precedents, will not want to be the first to put a Presidental candidate/ex-President in jail with “common criminals”.
(Trump is an *uncommon* criminal.)
Janet I agree with you totally!!!!!!
I also think that Robert has the answer to his question at the end:
“Why?” Why does the media believe it is their role to filter and correct Trump's incoherence? The answer to that question will vex historians for decades and centuries to come."
- No it won't!
"In the absence of a satisfying or clear answer to that question, my default assumption is that the major media sees Trump as good for business, even if he is bad for democracy. Profit über alles. Shame on them."
- GREED! What many times is the end of all good things!
agree, plus the Supreme Court can't get involved before the elections. Also, he can't fund raise off it now.
My initial reaction to Merchan's decision was "Boo hiss," but I quickly came to reason that he wisely averted distracting controversy before the election, as Robert explains.
I would like to see some reporting of whether E. Jean Carroll has received all (or any?) of the tens of millions Trump must pay her.
What about Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Mike Pence today, along with 88 Tycoons, including Rupe's son? And Goldman Sachs? That's all big stuff made for ads down the stretch. I can't wait to see Kamala sprint to the finish!
Yes, looking forward to the critical necessity of defeating Trump and MAGA Republicans, this week’s endorsements of Kamala Harris by Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Big Business leaders was a seismic expansion of the permission structure for Republicans and Independents to vote for Democrats in November.
What shocked me—in a really good way—was Liz Cheney’s comment about Trump and JD Vance: “This is my diplomatic way of saying it. They’re misogynistic pigs…women around this country…we’ve had enough.”
Video of Liz Cheney’s “diplomatic way of putting it:”
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_mGH2UyyWF/?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==
Thank you, Ellie! What a great clip!
.... this week’s endorsements of Kamala Harris by Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Big Business leaders was a seismic expansion of the permission structure for Republicans and Independents to vote for Democrats in November.
⬆️
I certainly won't look a gift horse in the mouth, but I wonder how far this "permission structure" extends beyond voting for Kamala Harris. Will they also vote against the Trump acolytes who scuttled the border bill on Trump's say so? Or against that crazy man, Mark Robinson, who is running on the GOP ticket for Governor of NC?
Are we going to see a huge influx of big money GOP donors into key swing state Senate races to make sure that we don't have a Democratic trifecta? We still have our work cut out for us.
The GOP have done such an excellent job of villifying Democrats over the years that I do question the motives of some of the people who are just now coming out against Trump. Are they trying to set us up for a dysfunctional legislature to ensure that Kamala Harris is an ineffective one-term president giving the GOP time to re-group? It's a shame that these folks couldn't have come to this realization before the primaries put so many MAGA crazies on the Novemer ballot!!
We can't take our foot off the gas!!
In yesterday's column by Jessica Craven a reader suggested several grassroots groups working in MT that could improve Tester's chances to retain his seat. This part of a comment posted by Anne Cauman:
...Tester has plenty of money but there is an enormous need to fund groups on the ground.
Martha Laning of SPAN (State Party Advancement Network) says there are 3 states with key races where the national Democrats are putting in little or no money into state Democratic parties (the money is going to Presidential Swing States). According to SPAN, the state Democratic parties particularly in need are Alaska, Montana, and Ohio. SPAN has a link for all three states. Given that Sherrod Brown appears to be doing much better than Tester and the AK race is a Congressional one, I think Montana is the priority (you can customize your donation) https://secure.actblue.com/donate/span-climateaction
Other groups on the ground need money. Both Movement Voter Project and Blue Tent recommend Montana Forward: https://forwardmontana.org/donations/?refcode=mvpsite
A Better Big Sky is the Donor Table for Montana c4 organizations: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/a-better-big-sky-1
“I do question the motives of some of the people who are just now coming out against Trump. Are they trying to set us up for a dysfunctional legislature to ensure that Kamala Harris is an ineffective one-term president giving the GOP time to re-group? It's a shame that these folks couldn't have come to this realization before the primaries put so many MAGA crazies on the November ballot!!“
I listened to the whole hour of Liz Cheney’s talk. I recommend that others listen to it as well. She urged voting against all MAGA Republicans. She endorsed Colin Allred for Senate in Texas. She spoke about the need to change our politics so that we can debate issues and not attack each other, and she noted that she had been guilty of that too. I think this is a moment to not only do everything in our power to save our democracy, but to give those on the other side credit for their work to save our democracy. We need them. The only way we’re going to survive is to get past the long era of demonization of political opponents. The GOP, starting with Gingrich, are almost solely responsible for this state of affairs, but when Republicans of good will step forward to try to change things I think we need to give them credit and welcome their efforts. Liz Cheney has showed tremendous courage and was willing to give up her political career to help save our democracy. We don’t do ourselves any favors by imagining ulterior motives. As for the GOP primaries, I think Cheney and other Republicans who are supporting Harris know that the GOP is too far gone to affect the primaries. After all, Liz lost her primary election. How effective could she be at that level?
Good news that. I respect Liz Cheney immensely even though I didsagree with ALL her policy decisions.
However, I don't have the same confidence in any of the "Business Leaders" who voted for Trump in 2020 because they liked his tax cuts. I don't know how many of the "country club" republicans voted for Trump in 2020, but I know he got votes beyond his MAGA base for sure.
I share your view of Liz Cheney completely. The “business leaders” and country club Republicans infuriate me to no end. But if a group of them are doing the right thing this time, I’ll take it.
I feel resonant with what both of you are saying. There are still a few Rs motivated by the right things and a warm thanks is warranted even if not all of them are exactly looking for a warm embrace since when this is all over they'll go right back to their fundamentally conservative views (Liz Cheney who I respect immensely as a human, did vote with 45 something like 95% of the time while in office). I don't think it hurts one bit however to keep a wary eye on ulterior motives because if we'd been that wary 30 years ago we might have counteracted Mitch McConnell's strategy of filling lower court seats with increasingly right wing judges. Being alert isn't the same as adopting a combative rather than cooperative pose. In general, I expect those late to the bandwagon to be the first to hop off.
We need to be pragmatic and rescue our democracy at this moment when it is in such peril. We don't have to have 100% agreement on everything--just to feel that we are within the pale of reasonableness and shared love for our country. As Michelle Obama said, don't hold out for a Goldilocks solution, where everything has to be absolutely perfect before you'll support it. That ain't gonna happen.
I whole-heartedly agree, Hopehappens. I yearn for a return to genuine bi-partisanship, when lawmakers routinely crossed the aisle to either support their constituencies or to vote on ethical and moral principles.
Liz Cheney showed her intellect, personal courage and powers on the Jan 6th committee. She is 1 of our heros.
Thank you for this enormously valuable analysis and guidance. I have given to Tester's campaign but have thought there must be more I could do from half-way across the continent. I will give to the ground games in Montana this weekend and urge others to do so.
I also raise a forlorn-voice hope for Arizona. We have some of the worst of the MAGA eight Congressional representatives. Yet no one at the national level is raising up these contests or supporting them in any meaningful way. No one nationally is even talking about them. My own congressional rep is Eli Crane (R-AZ), whose newsletter is entitled One in the Chamber and whose newsletter graphic is an AK-47. A nice person, Jonathan Nez, is the Democrat running against him. If anyone here can send Jonathan even $5, it would be great for America.
https://www.jonathannezforaz.com/
Sent $50. to the Nez campaign. Eloquent appeal for support.
I actually would like to see fewer people use the word “misogyny” to describe the continuous insults to women by Republican candidates. It sounds old-fashioned and at the same time overly technical. There are ways to get that point across that would be heard more clearly by a wider audience. I laughed at Cheney saying “they are misogynistic pigs“ because it harkens back to the long ago time this complaint was first made. But I think it would have been more powerful if she said “They keep disrespecting us and we’ve had enough!”
Perhaps “misogynistic pigs” should be considered a slur against pigs.
Haha I agree. Pigs do not deserve the bad name we humans sometimes give them
Actually, I think your mention of the word “misogyny” is… wow… an astute observation!
I remember being a young teenaged girl and not knowing what that meant. It sounded so technical (to use your word), I was intimidated and avoided it (that is until I met some misogynistic assholes and went on to read the book: Men who hate women and the women who love them. (Dr Susan Forward)).
Sweet Jesus in the foothills, please let us not allow our young people to not know exactly what we are saying when we are calling the Republican candidates out for their hateful speech toward women. Say it clear. Keep it simple. “They keep disrespecting us and we’ve had enough!”
Where are the links to articles about big business leaders endorsing Harris? I knew about Goldman Sachs statement that her plan for the economy is positive while the other side's plan would cause massive layoffs and a recession. But, who are the others?
The 88 business leaders who endorse Harris:
https://www.threads.net/@keithboykin/post/C_lX25BPu5p/?xmt=AQGz0FpkVUX9prSHYZTUvJyvqLA-xCZIoGNZLhZy8eUbaw
"What about Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and Mike Pence today, along with 88 Tycoons, including Rupe's son? And Goldman Sachs? That's all big stuff made for ads down the stretch."
I don't see that as a cause for celebration at all, for two reasons:
If truly evil people like Dick Cheney, Mike Pence, Liz Cheney, and Lachlan Murdoch are prepared to endorse Harris (rather than simply not endorse Trump), then clearly she's seen as totally safe and well in the capitalist bag ... not very progressive or liberal, what?? Not where I want my Democratic candidate to be.
And secondly, the millions of mouth-breathing MAGA rubes out there might simply say, "See, Harris is in the bag for the WASP ruling class, the capitalists, and the transnational globalists ... we have to vote Trump to defeat this Zionist cabal!". And they will have a pretty good point!
I prefer Harris to defeat Trump, who could not, but I don't hold my breath hoping she would do anything progressive much. She's mainstream safe party machine like Uncle Joe ... she isn't AOC.
It was James Murdoch (family rebel) not Lachlan who endorsed Harris. I don't agree with Liz Cheney's political views but honor her commitment to democracy. Her dad is guilty of war crimes, but if his endorsement gives us even a handful of old school GOP votes, he has my thanks.
As to what is "progressive" or the new "Liberal" and what is the mainstream of American sentiment, I refer you to Michael Moore:
https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/in-america-liberal-is-the-new-mainstream?r=3s3j1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Our planet is in the hands of those who are committing self immolation. I believe VP Harris understands that and she is the latest best hope to help on that front. I don't really see much daylight between Harris, Joe and AOC on that subject. And in the grand scheme and scope of history, isn't that all that really matters? Having a place to live?
AOC isn’t running. IMO, right now if Harris can defeat trump, we lay the ground work for progressive change and yet there is a big freakin but- but trump. If he get’s in you will see your/our/my progressive hopes, dreams, and desires go right out the window. You as much as said that, TY, at the same time whether or not our candidate is progressive enough is not our fight right now. We are saving democracy so we can get on to the business of … democracy.
Excellent comments all. For the next 60 days and immediately after we have to keep our focus on defeating Trump and electing Harris-Walz. Nothing else matters as much because if the door swings the other way and Trump wins all of our geese -- be they moderate, conservative, progressives -- are cooked, along with the rights and lives of millions of people in the USA and around the world who don't give a damn about party politics.
Worse yet Dr. White, trump would likely not remain as POTUS long with the cognitive decline now so evident. This means JD Vance takes over. Fathom that scenario!
Ian, let’s not misjudge at this crucial moment in our country’s history. How about stepping back from such unnecessary projections into a future with the Harris-Walz team when we already have an abundance of deceit, malfeasance, and vulgar divisiveness by TFG.
Also, I don't think Liz C. is evil. I totally disagree with her politics, but at the end of the day, she is anti-trump and what he stands for.
No, Harris isn't AOC. AOC also isn't running for president. Let's elect Harris first, and split progressive hairs LATER.
Exactly! Elect Harris and we will have a later
I didn't hear about the 88 Tycoons, incl. Rupe's son & Goldman Sachs. And MIKE PENCE? What happened??
I'm not pulling an endorsement by Pence up on a search. Where or when did that happen? He's not on the business letter. I'm mainly getting McCain's son, Judge Luttig and the Cheneys. Anyone have a link? I hate to spread something without seeing it first.
CNBC of 9/6/24 regarding 88 business leaders’ endorsement of Harris:
https://www.threads.net/@keithboykin/post/C_lX25BPu5p/?xmt=AQGzwFmsFFCnmsxEnU1BVnLzf9KD9Ko82PnsJtbKc0G_HA
Excellent positive news! Thanks for bringing these headlines front & center.
I write to note that I forwarded a letter to the Harris campaign I recently had written to ABC’s debate co-moderators, wherein I had submitted 1) that the questions have to be tougher, 2) that candidates have to be able to square their campaign rhetoric with facts, 3) that they have to be stopped when they’re not answering the question, and 4) that they have to be called out when their answers contradict the facts.
To be clear, while I don’t expect my letter to exert much (if any) impact on the debate co-moderators, I forwarded my letter to Harris because I do believe she could intervene where the co-moderators fail to meet their obligation to voters. For example, when Trump doesn’t answer a question and the next one is directed to Harris, she could premise her remarks by succinctly calling attention to Trump’s failure to answer the previous question, briefly answering it herself, then proceeding to the question directed to her. Similarly, and selectively, when Trump’s answer to a question is disconnected from verifiable facts, once it’s Harris’s turn to speak, she concisely could call out the discrepancy and counter with an explanation that can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence prior to turning to the question directed to her.
My point, while I agree we can’t bank on major media to do its job, is that we can offer thoughts to our candidates as to how they can step in to expose deceptions and reveal verifiable truths.
Barbara, I especially like #3 and #4. But I have no expectation that the moderators will be able to exercise any such controls over Trump. It has never happened. He won't cooperate.
Trump will do what he always does. Rant, ramble and accuse. Word salad stream of conscious fabrications.
My advice to VP Harris is for her to largely ignore him. She could start every speaking opportunity with simply: "Donald, you lie for a living. You just make stuff up. You always have." And then make a presentation that paints a picture of an improved America.
This will not be a "debate". It is a show. It is theater. It is free advertising or career threatening TV.
Oh how I wish it were different. I wish there could be two people standing there offering differing visions of governance - two people that had integrity - just different political philosophies. I wish your suggestions were used.
But such is not the case. Trump is Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Putin, Joseph McCarthy and Jim Jones all rolled into one disgusting disrespectful devil creature. We can't debate with the devil. We can just push it back down where it came from.
Morning Bill. As stated, I, too, have no expectations the co-moderators will follow any of my proposals. Still, I do stand by my conviction, with Harris at the podium, that viewers at large don’t have to wait, as they did in June, until after the debate for the release of deceptions and distortions from real-time fact checkers.
The trouble is Trump lies so rapidly and fact checking takes so much more time that she would expend her valuable time on responding to him. I do agree with the tactic of calling it out but unless she can pierce the lie in a single sentence or two at most, she ought to simply stick to a menu of snappy dismissives (including looking into the camera and telling the audience "All lies - read the fact checks after this") and answer the question posed. If she lets herself get side tracked the post debate autopsies will jump on her for not answering the questions, while giving a pass to 45's failures to do so.
I believe a huge part of Biden's trouble in his debate was due to trying to respond to 45's lies. It takes a quarter the time to toss out a lie as it does to correct it with proofs. It's an actual tactic to keep the other side on the back foot - "when you're explaining you're losing". It's theater but we hope, with her, it will be theater with teeth and truth so let the contrast speak for itself.
I hope she is willing to publicly reprimand him if he keeps heckling her when it's her turn to speak, which he did during Biden's answers. I also hope she calls "time" and insists he's returned to his podium if he looms over her like he did with Hillary. His supporters are excited by his bullying but if it were called out with consequences they might be suppressed some as we saw when the J6 insurrectionist rioters were brought to justice.
Have faith, Yehawes. Just remember what Harris did to Kavanagh in the hearings. It only took about 11 seconds.
Yehawes, I wholly agree that Harris must “pierce the lie in a single sentence or two.” Hence my use of such adverbs as “succinctly,” “briefly,” “selectively,” and “concisely” in my original posting.
Yes, and best of all if she can do it simply by stating a truth as part of her own response, such as stating the crime statistics after he's ranted that we are all being overcome by criminals. Personally, I'm not just hoping for her to do well but for him to completely disgrace himself on stage. It's nice when one can hope for things that are actually likely, no?
Yehawes, Clearly, you and I are on the same page. Still, I would note, were Harris, on the heels of Trump’s lies, to be asked an unrelated question, I would hope she, first, albeit concisely, expose the deceit prior to replying to the question addressed to her.
Kamala Harris is not an ordinary candidate. If she adopts Barbara Jo’s recommendations, she could seem “too tough” (a burden only women bear) and alienate some middle-of-the-road voters.
It shouldn’t be that way, but in the campaign Kamala Harris must be more the realist than the liberal moralist.
And yet another burden borne unfairly by women is the requirement not to be seen as too weak, so there you go. I think she'd do best to call it, waste none of her time correcting it although my heaven will have come if she let drop just one "that was just nonsense" or better yet "gibberish" and then set out her facts in her business like manner. I don't think many would see that as liberal moralist, too tough, too weak... and those who would see it that way won't ever see her in any positive light anyway. Those are the lost.
Agreed: At appropriate points, Harris should drop zingers and then move to cool, rational arguments.
Michael, I would submit how Harris is regarded, in large part, would depend on her tone. I suggest some combination of the “happy warrior” combined with a deeply felt desire to connect with everyday people’s interests and concerns.
Right on, Bill! Love the last paragraph listing.
There are alternative media which will fact check real time and Harris has an experienced team and the big advantage she has is her prosecuting experience of building a case. Trump has specific attack points against Harris but she has a truck load of things against Trump. She needs to keep smiling and be light and not get rattled. She will be the best person we have ever seen debating Trump .
Stephen, Similar to the real-time fact checkers when Trump and Biden debated in June, the release of their data for broad public consumption will be blocked off until after the debate. Hence our reliance on Harris during the debate.
Thanks for that.
Not to be a downer but when the alternative media fact checks in real time - his supporters will be engaged with and listening to far right shows that spew alternative facts.
It’s the independents and Republicans and youth vote we want and they will be watching.
I agree, Stephen. Let the MAGA people go. Nothing that anyone can say will sway them. But the independents, the real Republicans, the youth, the Latinos, young Black men...that's who we need to save our democracy.
My wish for the debate Sept 10 : That Harris continues to sweep Trump's lies and incoherences aside with a few choice words, takes advantage of her opponent's muted mike, then turns directly to us the voters to address the subject of the question. If she falls into the trap of bickering with Trump (as Biden tragically did in the first debate), it will be a lost cause. When it is Trump's turn, he'll have plenty of time to sabotage himself. She just has to project Presidential confidence, energy and coherence as she has managed to do so impressively up until now.
Well said! Diminish him by ignoring him dismissively. Then act like the president she will become.
… but not too dismissively. Putting people down hard will alienate many viewers.
I don't think ignoring Trump equates to putting people down hard.
As Robert writes: "It is difficult to fault Judge Merchan’s reasoning, even though the opposite outcome would have been equally reasonable." Merchan was in an impossible situation. He's a highly respected and experienced jurist who had spent a year in the scorching kleig light of MAGA land. Where every decision, reasonable or not, was subject to a napalm bombardment from Fox and similar running dogs. Impossible. So who am I not to find his ruling OK. He's never done anything but the best he can do when the subject is an out-of-control megalomaniac.
Robert has shared: "Trump has corrupted the Court by manipulating—in bad faith—the constitutional mechanisms for appointing justices. " Certainly true. But impossible without the really evil dark forces lurking behind the throne. The master manipulator Mitch McConnell should always be acknowledged as the prime mover. Behind him stood the evil and smarmy Federalist Society with the infamous Leonard Leo at the helm. Never forget: McConnell and Leo. The evil twins. Trump's brains.
Bingo on Mitch. Terrible for our country.
With respect to the upcoming debate, I do feel Ms Harris will be able to hold her own just fine. One thing bothers me though. There has been a lot of negotiations about whether the microphones should be muted when the other candidate speaks. That could be a toss up with respect to how the debate goes. However, what really bothered me about the Biden/Trump debate was that Trump consistently, after being asked a new question, go back to try to add more to whatever answer he had given before. I think that is a complete failure on the part of the debate moderators. They should have interrupted The Convicted Felon and Rapist and tell him that the debate had moved on and that he should address the current question being asked of him. I hope they take more control this time.
I so appreciate your continued analysis of how insanely inept MSM is in covering these dangerous times. Greg Sargent interviews a Prof from U Chicago (who used to be a journalist in DC) who provides some great insight: the media’s preference for “directing” versus “documenting”. A podcast worth your time: https://thedsrnetwork.com/trumps-mental-state-just-got-visibly-worse-will-the-media-say-so
I like his podcast. I write postcards while I listen.
thanks!
Great post again ... although you have far more faith in the importance of Democrats (and other people of good will) maintaining a belief in the rule of law than I can sustain.
It is what moderate, intelligent, and educated people say all the time, when a rich or powerful person skates because of a corrupt, complicit, or incompetent court ruling - but boy it is wearing really thin.
Trump (and about 99% of his partners in crime) has not faced a serious consequence for either the insurrection and attempted coup, or even the blatantly clear documents case. No one in nearly four years has laid a finger on him ... and we are supposed to retain a belief in the rule of law? It is a big ask, and I think an increasingly unreasonable one.
Merrick Garland has sat on his hands for years, and Joe Biden has done nothing obvious to prosecute the case ... it is like all that awful stuff between Nov 2020 and Jan 2021 didn't happen, or is just routine politics, or all inside the beltway piffle. Talk about buying the MAGA talking points!
So what does the delay in sentencing mean? If the judge was/is planning to jail Trump (as he definitely should), then that would seem a "good" reason to delay the sentencing date. But if Trump wins the election, can you see the judge still trying to jail Trump? Of course not ... such a ruling wouldn't last a week.
If Trump loses the election, then he's toast pretty-well everywhere I guess. He'll spend his retirement in appellate courts, if not jail, and hand over big money to lawyers with both hands. Good.
Ellen here--Ian, I'm with you. I'm feeling completely let down by the justice system in our country. It is beyond understanding how Trump has avoided jail time for inciting the insurrection on Jan. 6th. He is a traitor who attempted to overthrow the United States government and steal an election, He hasn't been held to account and it remains to be seen if he will be. Trump is gaming the system quite successfully in my opinion.
AND he's gloating about it.
Whether he wins or loses (I expect he’ll lose bigly!) Trump will linger on. We would do well to move on and thereby cut off his oxygen.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
I actually think Merchan’s decision makes sense.
Yesterday was a tough day to keep my spirits up. Again, I hope blue states are taking note of what is happening in states where craziness reigns supreme.
Just yesterday:
Texas women were told if they travel out of state to access healthcare legal in that other state, Texas should seize their medical records.
Texas teachers were told they must not invite nonpartisan outside speakers to talk about voter registration.
Texas counties were told they should not make it easier for unregistered eligible voters to register.
The good news is one needn’t worry about gun purchasing restrictions.
I asked Marc Elias (Democracy Docket) what can be done to get Federal Marshalls to Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Florida for voter protection. Since I donate to them every month I am on special mailing lists. A friend just got her parents (who are Black) out of Florida. Another couple I know, also Black, just got their parents out of Texas.
WOW. That people must move in order to make their voices heard/their health card decisions respected ........ I'd say it's beyond belief, and yet here we are.
Think about moving.
We have, though we are in our 70s, have been here our whole lives, and until recently cared of aging parents here.
Isn't it awful how the MSM is failing us? This from HCR's letter from today, she quotes the Russian propagandists as instructing, "At the same time, you should continuously repeat that this is what is really happening, but the official media will never tell you about it or show it to you.” And that's believable because the MSM isn't doing its job! Thank you Substack for existing and providing this all so important platform. Thank you Robert for your diligence and continually smart take on our world.
When I read “but the official media will never tell you about it or show it to you,” I internally shouted YES! The Russian propagandists are right about that point (unfortunately). These days, one often needs to scour several sources in order to get a decent picture of what’s going on.
He's such a swinger. Can you imagine, in this day and age, actually saying as Trump did and as Robert relates: "And in a breath-taking admission, he said he did assault one of his accusers because, “[S]he would not have been the chosen one.” That defense repeats his claim that he did not sexually assault E. Jean Carrol because “She’s not my type.”" This is 2024. How in heaven's name can a man convicted of raping his victim circle right back around to the topic and re-fight the fight he lost? Are you crazy??
That was actually a misquote in the newseltter. As I commented elsewhere here, Trump went through a long story about how this all took place on a flight with many people around and it "couldn't have happened, it didn't happen and she would not have been the chosen one."
So, I quoted Trump's statement word-for-word, omitting the rambling preface, which I indicated by using the parenthetical to indicate "[S]he" was modified to begin the sentence. How is that a misquote?
Hmmm I wonder if there are multiple versions of his telling of this story. He certainly does repeat himself.
What newsletter was this in? I totally missed this.
Standing alone, Judge Merchan's decision, as you note, makes good sense in upholding the rule of law. In the context of the other 5 cases that involve the failed insurrectionist, including his failure thus far to pay the judgements in the two civil cases, yesterday's decision looks like just one more case of the legal system being abused to protect a clearly guilty party because of their wealth and notoriety. While no one can reasonably accuse Judge Merchan of anything less than outstanding commitment to principle, he is, in this case, being splashed by the tar that is properly covering the Supreme Court and the much less distinguished Judge in Florida.
Judge Chutkin shows that it is possible to proceed despite the criminal being judged eligible to run for office. Reporters have described merchan’s voice shaking when he faced Trump in court. I think the death threats were too much for him and his family. Trump should’ve been arrested for contempt of court and as it is, he got away with that along with everything else.
There must be accountability for the people doing the bidding for Felon Trump. This is an organnized crime pattern of behavior in need of an immediate intervention. For a broader understanding, the well documented work of Dr Brandy X Lee, psychiatrist, is quite revealing.
I agree Lauren. I think it was the death threats to him and his family that got to Judge Merchand in his decision to postpone sentencing again.
https://www.americaamerica.news/p/did-judge-merchan-make-the-right/comments?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=283745&post_id=148609444&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=1metx&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The money is not in her hands yet, but a bond was posted in the E. Jean Carroll cases - for what that's worth:
https://apnews.com/article/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-appeal-298114f9b8c402643ec4747671fc75de
The same apparently applies to Giuliani and Alex Jones, and justice delayed is most surely justice denied.
None of these people are going to see a dime.
The most important line in your commentary today is to enlarge the court if we win the Presidency and simple majorities in the House and Senate. Given four years of corrective action, the public will understand the proper role of the court and be reluctant to support politicians who would turn it back to the currently most partisan court since Roger Taney and the Dred Scott decision which led directly to the Civil War.
I think the decision Judge Marchand made was the right decision because it took away the media frenzy and Trump PR advantage and playing the martyr role. It actually gave us the incentive to vote so we can sentence him right after the election. I have decided not to waste energy or frustration on the media coverage of Trump because I can’t change it but events and endorsements like the Cheney’s make headlines and give Republicans the permission to hold their nose and vote Democratic and probably are more effective. There will be no winners or loser in the debate. There will be two candidates being themselves. That is all we need.
Thank you for your comments and analysis. Your newsletter is doing what traditional news media should be doing. I now only subscribe to publications like yours and to the Guardian.