W. Niederhut

Geez... Now the Orange Psychopath is claiming that his 2020 False Elector schemes in several states were "official acts." In the John Roberts SCROTAL MAGA-verse, organizing slates of False Electors to overturn the results of elections is just part of a President's job. Donald Trump Says Fake Electors Scheme Was 'Official Act' (msn.com)

They aren't merely "pundits," Cliff. They are the leading liberal intellectuals in the U.S.-- e.g., Krugman, Kristof, Norman Soloman, et.al. Needless to say, any Democrat would be a vastly superior choice for 2025 than the Orange Psychopath-- the worst POTUS in American history, by scholarly consensus. But a second Biden inauguration could play out like Weekend At Bernie's. And, now that the Koch/Federalist Society SCOTUS has hijacked the U.S. government and blocked Trump's prosecutions, our democracy is hanging by a thread. Arguing obsessively about the JFK records in July of 2024 is a bit like fretting about a piece of burned toast while the entire house is burning down. The JFK records are important, but America's house is currently on fire.

Matt, Which Democratic candidate has the best chance of defeating the Orange Psychopath in November? (I don't know the answer to that question.) Kamala Harris was a distant 5th or 6th in the 2020 Democratic primaries, before dropping out early.

Well, fortunately, Ben Cole has taken a belated interest in the subject of the competence and "adequacy" of Executive branch personnel. Better late than never! We could have used such circumspection from Ben when the U.S. witnessed the most historically corrupt, inept Presidential administration in history, from 2017-21. How many Trump staffers ended up in prison? How many felony indictments? Nor were Pompeo, Trump, and his inept staffers ever heroic adversaries of the Deep State-- aside from firing FBI Directors, (to halt investigations of the 2016 Trump campaign's numerous contacts with Kremlin officials.) For the most part, "Trump got rolled by Deep State," as Oliver Stone said in 2017. In any case, this thread about contemporary politics belongs on the designated JFK Records thread, with Ben Cole's numerous other polemical "Biden Snuff Job" threads about the JFK Records. We should leave scholarly threads about the JFK Records in the hands of our resident experts-- Simpich, DiEugenio, Schnapf, et.al. The political punditry should go elsewhere. But Ben, evidently, didn't get the memo.

From the distinguished, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Risen... The Supreme Court Wants a Dictator The right-wing court is engaged in a radical revolution to upend U.S. democracy. James Risen July 1 2024, 4:38 p.m. MONDAY’S SUPREME COURT ruling granting far-reaching presidential immunity gives the lie to decades of right-wing propaganda about the real purpose of the long conservative campaign to take over the court. Generations of conservative pseudointellectuals have argued that the mission of the Federalist Society, the powerful conservative legal group that has seeded the Supreme Court with its zombie-like members, was to bring the court back to its original mandate under the Constitution. The right-wing pundits who promoted the Federalist Society were always a little vague on what their version of “originalism” really entailed, which led to widespread suspicions that it just meant whatever was politically beneficial to conservatives. The ruling on presidential immunity is just the latest piece of evidence that shows that originalism was just a confidence game by the right to gain power. The court’s conservative majority has revealed itself to be a corrupt political machine with both short- and long-term goals. Today, the court is determined to protect Donald Trump and the Republican Party; longer-term, its mandate is to protect and defend the powers of those who will enable white minority rule in America for years to come. The court’s immunity ruling is nearly a blank check for Trump, a brazen attempt to protect him from his ongoing criminal cases and to grant him virtually unlimited power if he gets back into the White House. With its ruling, the Supreme Court’s right-wing block has made it clear: They are tired of democracy. The justices want a dictator. But they only want a right-wing dictator. It is not hard to imagine how differently the justices would have ruled if the question of presidential immunity had come before them in a case involving a Democratic president. The right-wing court is engaged in a radical revolution, and its objective is to rewrite modern American history. Through their rulings, the conservative justices are revealing what the American right has until recently tried to keep quiet, which is that the right doesn’t accept any of the major changes that have happened in American society since World War II. They have in their minds a fantasy version of 1940s America, even though almost none of them were alive at the time. What they yearn for is a nation before integration and civil rights, before women’s rights and reproductive rights, before gay rights, before the modern expansions of free speech and press freedom. Above all, they want a return to a less diverse America, a nation in which white male power was unquestioned. They want it so badly that they are willing to abandon democracy to get it. The radicalized court, with the Federalist Society’s approval, are in the process of demolishing the landmark Supreme Court rulings of the post-World War II era. In order to get confirmed, Trump’s appointees to the court lied to the Senate by claiming that they saw Roe v. Wade as settled law; they ripped it up as soon as they consolidated their power on the court. In quick succession, they have gone after voting rights, affirmative action, gun control, environmental regulations, while sending out the word that now is a good time for conservative lawyers to bring their most extreme lawsuits to the court in order to create more right-wing precedents. This court could ban access to contraceptives next; another target could be a reversal on the legalization of gay marriage. The court is now so radical that it would not be surprising to see it go after Brown versus Board of Education, the historic Supreme Court ruling that declared that separate but equal schools were unconstitutional and which helped formed the basis for integration. This court will be remembered like the justices behind the Dredd Scott decision, the worst ruling by the Supreme Court in American history. Their robes don’t hide their naked grab for political power.

FWIW, Bill Maher has now joined Kirk Gallaway and I in calling for Gavin Newsom to replace Biden on the 2024 Democratic ticket. I'm reluctant to post any links to a Fox News report, but they're covering this story. Bill Maher urges Democrats to hold open convention, floats Gavin Newsom: ‘We’ve babied Joe Biden enough’ | Fox News

Not only that, Steve, prosecutors can't use evidence against a POTUS that is based on the testimony of his official staff. I'm picturing Haldeman, Erlichman, John Dean, John MItchell, and Rosemary Woods not being questioned about Nixon's possible involvement in Watergate.

Spare us the mindless MAGA misogyny and racism, Ben. Your assessment of Harris as "inadequate" is simply moronic. She's highly intelligent. You remind me of those NOBAMA guys who used to claim that Barack Obama couldn't speak eloquently without a teleprompter. Those are racist stereotypes straight out of Birth of a Nation. As for visibilty, how "visible" have most Vice Presidents been, historically? Invisibility, and an office in the Old Executive building, are standard aspects of that job. Mike Pence silently smiled at Trump for four years, before nearly being lynched by Trump's MAGA mob on January 6th. He had to hide in a parking garage for several hours during your harmless "scrum"-- the "Patriot Purge." Now Pence is declining to endorse Trump's 2024 candidacy, along with most of Trump's former Cabinet officials. But Trump will find another silent, smiling lackey for his ticket-- probably one who will refuse to certify elections, at Trump's behest.

Indeed, Matt. July 1, 2024 is a dark, dark day in American history. The Koch-bought/Federalist Society MAGA SCOTUS has no shame. These sociopaths in black robes-- Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barret-- have gone out of their way to block the prosecution of Donald Trump's historic crimes against American democracy. I naively thought that they would, ultimately, uphold the rule of law.

Michael, I'd be happy to discuss the 9/11 science data, but this is a thread about scholarly rankings of Donald Trump as the worst POTUS in American history-- an assessment which is accurate, in my opinion. Briefly... What I know, for certain, is that; 1) WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11. All three buildings collapsed abruptly at near free fall acceleration to Ground Zero, indicating abrupt demolition of the entire massive steel sub-structures-- as opposed step-wise, assymetrical collapse by gravitational "pile driver" forces. 2) The high-tech, military grade explosives burned hot enough to completely liquefy steel girders, and they also explosively pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into high-heat, pyroclastic flows into the Manhattan atmosphere. Jet fuel -- the official government explanation for the WTC demolitions --simply doesn't burn hot enough to liquefy steel. Nor was there sufficient jet fuel on the upper stories to abruptly demolish the entire massive steel sub-structures below. So, who put the military-grade, thermitic explosives in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 prior 9/11? Who controlled access to those buildings? Cui bono? Who, ultimately, benefited from the shocking Pearl Harbor-like 9/11 op? Also, you must surely know, as a U.S. military intelligence guy, that the U.S. government had successfully flown and maneuvered Boeing jetliners with Raytheon's GPS-guided remote-piloting technology in the summer of 2001. I think it was tested in Marana, Arizona in August of 2001. Give that military industrial complex data some thought.

I agree with Paul Krugman, Nicholas Kristof, Rosenthal, and the New York Times editorial staff on this one, as some of us have discussed on other threads. The Democrats appear to be divided about 50-50 on this issue of replacing Biden on the 2024 ticket. Unlike Trump's MAGA cult in the U.S., the Democratic Party isn't a monolithic cult. We often disagree. About half of us are "progressives" who didn't vote for Biden in the 2020 Democratic primaries, and some of us are very angry about Biden's collusion in Netanyahu's Gaza genocide. (Incidentally, both Trump and RFK, Jr. have endorsed the Gaza genocide. See Edward Curtin's, Epistle to RFK, Jr. on this board.) Of course, even a yellow dog would be a better POTUS than Donald Trump and his Project 2025 Big Oil plutocrats, but Biden is too old for the job, IMO. As a progressive, I'm angry that Biden and his inner circle have been dissembling about his functionality, and now refusing to acknowledge the problem.

Exactly right, Steve. The Democratic Party is not a monolithic cult. We sometimes disagree with each other. That's healthy. About half of us are "progressives" who didn't vote for Biden in the 2020 Democratic primaries. Some of us disagreed with each other about Biden's response to the Gaza disaster. And some of us disagree now about Biden's fitness for office in 2025, and beyond. I'm in full agreement with Norman Soloman's opinions about Gaza and about Biden's age. Opinion | We Cannot Gaslight Our Way Out of This | Common Dreams

Focusing on reality, and the facts about history and contemporary events, isn't "partisanship." It's the essence of valid historiography and scholarship, in the tradition of John Simkin and the Education Forum. As a moderator, Ron Bulman has consistently focused on supporting evidence-based historiography. He has also consistently studied relevant books and articles discussed on the forum. Conversely, Ben Cole has often failed to distinguish between facts and opinions since joining the Education Forum, even when forum members have gone to the trouble of clearly posting the facts that refute his opinions. It's the precise opposite of "education." The best known example was Ben's redundant insistence that Trump's J6 mob attack on Congress was a Deep State "Patriot Purge," and a mere "scrum." It's a "viewpoint," but it's false history. Ben has also repeatedly insisted that there are no substantive differences between "Donks and 'Phants"-- i.e., between the Democratic Party that created the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare, and the Republican Party that fought for years to block, de-fund, and abolish all of these pro publica programs. That "viewpoint" is simply false, historically. And it's also a short cognitive leap from that false premise to urging forum member to vote for third-party candidates. In any case, the Education Forum should remain focused on educating the public about historical facts and contemporary reality-- including, of course, the true history of the JFK assassination.

No sarcasm, Matt. There were rumors that Nixon's dirty tricksters had drugged Muskie prior to his "crying" speech that ended his candidacy in the 1972 Democratic primaries.