Today’s Edition: Short and sweet.

January 19, 2024

[No audio today due to illness.]

Given that I am not in tip-top shape due to a Covid infection, I am following advice from a reader to link to important stories and advise readers to “Discuss amongst yourselves.”

---

House Democrats again act as “Adults in the room.”

Congress passed another short-term continuing resolution to keep the government open. But as on the two prior occasions, getting to “Yes” required majority support from the minority party in the House (i.e., Democrats). Per The Guardian,

The House approved the bill in a vote of 314 to 108, with 107 Republicans and 207 Democrats supporting the proposal. The House speaker, Republican Mike Johnson, took up the bill under suspension of the rules, so he needed two-thirds of the chamber to support the legislation to get it passed. In a potentially worrisome sign for Johnson, 106 Republicans opposed the bill as hard-right members of the conference called for steeper spending cuts.

This is the third short-term continuing resolution passed with majority support from Democrats and minority support from Republicans. The first time that happened, Republicans ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. Mike Johnson has now passed two continuing resolutions over the objections of most of the GOP caucus.

---

Motion to disqualify Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis.

According to a motion to disqualify D.A. Fani Willis, one of Trump's co-defendants in Georgia’s RICO action for election interference has moved to disqualify D.A. Fani Willis. The motion is based on the fact that one of three special counsels hired by Fani Willis is allegedly romantically involved with Willis. It is not clear why a romantic relationship between Willis and a special counsel would require dismissal of charges against Trump, but that is the request being made by one of Trump's co-defendants.

Many readers have expressed shock and despair that Willis may have put herself in a position where her impartiality can be questioned. This piece by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo expresses those feelings but also notes that it is not clear why Willis should be disqualified or the charges dismissed. See Talking Points Memo, WTF? Or, The Latest on Fani Willis.

Josh Marshall writes,

On the one hand it’s still not clear to me — and not to many lawyers I’ve spoken to — just what the bad act here would be. Unless Nathan Wade, the outside prosecutor and alleged boyfriend, was submitting false billing reports, the claims of misuse of public funds or kickbacks are thin at best.

Willis and Wade are adults. They can have a romantic relationship if they want. But the thinness of these accusations on the merits are just swallowed alive by the dumbfounding inexplicability of just what on earth Willis — assuming the claims of a relationship are true — was possibly thinking.

Trump goes to town on the alleged partisanship of his enemies’ nephew’s friend’s personal trainer. What was she thinking? And with everything that was and is at stake.

It seems unlikely that the charges will be dismissed or that Willis will be disqualified. But who knows? Georgia Republicans have been trying to disqualify Willis before she brought charges or hired three private attorneys as special counsel—one of whom she is allegedly involved in a romantic relationship with.

The double standard being applied to Fani Willis is evidenced by the language used in the motion to disqualify and the media coverage. The reports says that Fani Willis is “accused” of being romantically involved with a special prosecutor. Criminals are accused of crimes—as in “Trump is accused of rape.”

Being engaged in a romantic relationship is not a crime. The proper word is “alleged.” But Fani Willis is a Black woman, so apparently, she stands “accused” of being involved in a romantic relationship. If the media has applied the same description to her male partner in the relationship, I have missed it. (I do not mean to ignore the difficult issues raised by employer / employee relationships, which are fraught with power differentials and opportunities for coercion and harassment.)

There is a separate question of whether financial or ethical improprieties flow from the alleged relationship. Willis may have committed a grave lapse of judgment, and if true, we can all wish she had not. If she violated a rule of attorney conduct or state law (doubtful), she should be held accountable—nor more, no less than any other public servant. In the meantime, there is no apparent ground for disqualifying Fani Willis.

---

Congressional Republicans file “friend of the court” brief asking Supreme Court to allow Trump to remain on the ballot.

In opposing Trump's second impeachment for inciting insurrection, one argument congressional Republicans made was that Trump could be civilly and criminally prosecuted after he was out of office. In the words of Mitch McConnell, “Trump hasn’t gotten away with anything, yet.”

Today, many of those same Republican members of Congress—including Mitch McConnell—filed a brief in the Supreme Court arguing that the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court circumvents the role of Congress in decided whether Trump is disqualified from holding federal office.

The above two paragraphs should have caused whiplash because Congress is trying to have it both ways.

The “friend of the court” brief is here: Trump v. Anderson | Brief Of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, e al.)

See also the following article for a general description. CNN Politics, Top GOP lawmakers ask Supreme Court to keep Trump on the ballot.

---

Trump is unwinding on the campaign trail. It’s time for the media to notice.

As Trump spends more time on the campaign trail, his cognitive impairments become clearer by the day. Moreover, Trump is exhibiting a variety of physical impairments that suggest a man who is suffering from a variety of illnesses. Because major media outlets have yet to report on these issues, I do not feel comfortable linking to reports on social media. But you can poke around on social immunity and find shocking videos depicting various ailments (including today) that do not get the same coverage as Biden’s alleged age-related impairments.

Lucian Truscott went to the effort to review the transcript of a recent Trump rally speech. If you want a disturbing look inside Trump's disordered mind, check out: It's a cult - by Lucian K. Truscott IV (substack.com)

---

Opportunity for reader engagement.

Check out this really interesting “reading” of the Trump indictment by eighty-three readers—some “famous and some not so famous.”

Partners4Democracy (P4D) is unveiling its unique project focused on Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine democracy in the United States.  The Special Event is on January 25 at 7:00 PM (Eastern).  The initiative, called “Read the Indictment”, was inspired when Special Counsel Jack Smith implored Americans to read the January 6 indictment to understand the severity of the threat posed by Trump’s actions.  Eighty-three readers, some famous (e.g., Senator Jeff Merkley and Al Franken) and some not so famous, read the entire indictment - viewers may view select portions or view it all.  The January 25 program will feature segments of the reading with former NPR host Robert Siegel discussing the implications of Trump’s activities on American democracy.

P4D is a volunteer group that raises money for grassroots groups in target states who work year-round to organize and get out the vote among key constituencies.  It also supports candidates in state and national races who have a credible chance of winning and who need additional financial resources.  P4D identifies volunteer and contribution opportunities and for its network and holds monthly Special Events on topics of interest in the 2024 election.

Attendance is free – REGISTER HERE for this unique event.

---

Concluding Thoughts.

I have a favor to ask from readers who are able to post a Comment. I received a raft of requests today asking for information to help persuade friends not to change registration to the No Labels “Party.” I don’t have the bandwidth or energy to create a resource list. Anyone involved in the effort to oppose No Labels, please post resources and articles in the Comment section suitable for sharing with friends.

The developments in the various judicial proceedings have been disappointing because the courts are not acting like we face an emergency. That means we MUST defeat Trump at the ballot box—which has always been the case!

Talk to you tomorrow!