The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Douglas Caddy]

Do not miss scrolling through these slides. Fantastic views of Mar-a-Logo and Trump.

 

FBI find huge bombshell at Mar-a-Lago that could cost Trump his lawsuit (msn.com)

Edited September 9, 2022 by Douglas Caddy

[Douglas Caddy]

This is what happening in Texas public schools under fascist Gov. Greg Abbott:

 

Eighth-grade transgender student reportedly questioned by Texas officials at school (msn.com)

[Douglas Caddy]

Federalist Society's goal is this

 

ttps://www.rawstory.com/aileen-cannon/

[Matt Allison]

 

[Joe Bauer]

17 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

 

Outrageous!

[Douglas Caddy]

[W. Niederhut]

Everything Wrong With Judge Cannon’s Ruling - Lawfare (lawfareblog.com)

[Kirk Gallaway]

I love exploding false equivalency myths.

 

 

 

https://external-preview.redd.it/cnUFaTBAl2C0Zqf9EqPgXrSgLC8rEBSZxarrGbbMzoI.png?width=640&crop=smart&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4720b4bcf67920f95ac7ba4fc00ab9e42c993281

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Matt Allison]

[Douglas Caddy]

Trump nominates a former partner of Jones Day law firm to be the Special Master. See the forthcoming book, Servants To The Damned, for the role of Jones Day in the corruption of the judiciary.

Trump, DOJ file response after judge’s ruling on special master (msn.com)

 

[Matt Allison]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Trump nominates a former partner of Jones Day law firm to be the Special Master. See the forthcoming book, Servants To The Damned, for the role of Jones Day in the corruption of the judiciary.

 

One of the wonderful side benefits to the fall of Trump is how he'll drag down all the other trash people along with him.

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Hi Kirk, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am of the belief that geopolitics is the undercurrent for almost all political moves by the major players (and not only internationally but even domestically at times). Syria, for example. I agree with you. But there is a larger geopolitical point, which is that Syria was a geopolitical target for both the United States and Russia. So I believe that the United States motives in that country did go even beyond the oil. But the point I was trying to make was that Trump, by saying we are leaving troops in for the oil, exposes the larger propaganda that intervention in Syria was necessary for "democracy", "freedom", etc. 

I agree domestically that the supreme court appointments have had serious repercussions and are one of the largest damning features of the Trump administration. The number of stories about women being forced to move states to abort fesuses that are not viable, such as this woman in Louisiana, are heartbreaking.

Citizen's United was a ruling that occurred during the Obama adminstration, so Trump can't be blamed for that.

W., I am heartened to see that you have not lost your rightful skepticism of institutions such as the FBI and CIA, however I fear that may not be the case not only for the baby boomer generation but for the population at-large. A relatively recent Pew poll largely shows public trust in the CIA and FBI. Furthermore, mainstream media has been an active ally of both institutions in recent years, most notably their embarrassing idolatry of entrenched figures such as Comey (who you rightfully criticize for his handling of the Clinton emails), Mueller, and Brennan. Not to mention the truly depressing alliance that occurred under during the Trump years between democrats (and democratic/liberal identifying TV talking heads) and Bush-era white house officials, examples including  Colin Powell and Christine Whitman speaking at the 2020 Democratic Convention, and Steve Schmidt, David Frum, and Bill Kristol (among others) being given frequent speaking slots as guests on MSNBC, a television channel that all but branded itself as the home for Bush/neocon opposition in the 2000s. The treatment of Trump as an aberration has extended to statements by certain talking heads even expressing fond remembrance of the Bush years, threatening a rehabilitation of the reputation of the Bush years themselves, years which caused the needless deaths of millions.

The point is this: Trump was used as a whipping boy to cement support for federal institutions such as the FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon. The Overton window of American politics is exceedingly small, and the true differences between Democrats and Republicans are usually limited to minor differences in domestic issues (abortion being a major exception that I can think of, although that is its own interesting discussion). The majority of politicians are united in their support of the very apparatus JFK was trying to dismantle. The Trump presidency threatened to expose this, and reveal the mainly unscrutinized overlap between the neoconservative and neoliberal politics that dominate American politics. They used the aberrative Trump phenomenon to sell the FBI and CIA as unassailable institutions in the eyes of the American public, and to make an example of anyone who dares to think otherwise.

There is no question that Trump is a racist, and gives a platform to racist ideologies that had essentially been largely and rightfully suppressed for decades. But, about 74 million Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2020. The Biden administration has been exceedingly clear in their weaponization of the term "MAGA Republicans" (see BIden's most recent speech). As noted in my original post, Biden's press secretary recently described anyone who holds an opinion differing from the majority as holding extremist views.

"There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans." -President Biden

Are the white nationalists of whom you speak the dominating force of the republican party? Are you prepared to produce data that supports that over 38 million people in America are white nationalist fascists, thus constituting the majority of Trump voters and therefore the dominating force in the party? If you are not, by what mechanism are "MAGA Republicans" such a threat?

If you plan to use Jan. 6th as an example, as you note above, you would be wise in following the wisdom of the crowd, who agrees with you, but incorrect in your use of the word "coup" to describe it. It was certainly violent, but if Jan. 6th was a "coup", it was the most pathetic coup attempt I can imagine. As widely reported on the day of the event, when the protesters entered the capitol, they didn't know what to do. Many of them took selfies. Typically a coup tries to result in the overthrow of the government, which was not remotely a threat on that day. The protesters, and indeed a contingent of Trump's voters, are violent and ascribe to white nationalist extremism, including likely many of those who stormed the capitol. To leap from there and to describe them as "the closest we've come" to a fascist disaster is a leap that requires substantial evidence that I would love to see. In addition to explaining how so-called MAGA republicans are the dominating force of the party, I would think a reasonable mechanism by which they would be able to gain power and impose their ideologies on the country would be necessary. A helpful start for you would be pointing out which actions occurred under the Trump administration that evidence this. I am all ears.

Trump has spawned a lot of negativity, largely intentionally. But the impact of that negativity on the status quo of American politics has been minimal, especially in comparison to the campaign made against it, which has been so far-reaching as to be historic, and rarely actually combative of it in any meaningful way. In my opinion your skepticism of the racist Trump cult, while healthy, is misguided.

(I have strong feelings about the Russia investigation, which you raise, some of which pertain to this discussion, however I dare not raise my own opinions and will save them for a future post, for fear of entering into a discussion solely on the merits of that topic.)
 

As a university professor, I would be literally shooting myself in the foot if I thought education is awful. Let's read each other's words carefully.

Ben, I really appreciate your posts and your takes around here a lot, and thanks for the kind words. I get your point on Cohen and I agree. I would only say, if you take a look at Republican party platforms' attitudes towards China since 1968, you can see that since 1972, when Nixon/Kissinger reignited economic relations with China, that the republican condemnation of China has only been towards "human rights" and its treatment of Taiwan; economic cooperation with China has not been questioned by the repubs since at least Nixon. So I don't think the change in attitude towards China is a recent phenomenon. I do however think unprecedented and bi-partisan trust in the security state (FBI, CIA, Pentagon) is recent and dangerous. I mean, something like the Church Committee would be absolutely unfathomable in today's day and age.

Miles M:

We agree on so much you are beginning to bore me. 

Yes, the Old Guard GOP embraced globalism long ago, including extensive investment in China by multinationals, and heavy exports back into US markets (with consequences for US industry and employees). 

Somewhere back, probably during the Clinton Administration (Bill was Mr NAFTA, after all), the Donks jumped in with both feet. 

Of course, one can trace the lineage of multinationals and foreign policy all the way back to the Smedley Buyer days, and through the Dulles years.  

Now, no one can tell the difference between a Liz Cheney an an HRC on foreign-trade-military matters. 

I concur with you (and Glenn Greenwald) that the Deep State, the M$M and the Donks have merged. 

Curiously, it is the populist wing of the GOP now most skeptical of the national security state, and globalism. I too wish the populist wing would explicitly and publicly eschew racism---or rather, affirm that the primary client is the employee class, and ID politics of any kind is poison. 

BTW, Trump in his otherwise banal 2016 campaign speeches, would always include a segment, albeit in a somewhat obligatory tone, stating that racism had no part in the modern GOP. I noticed then that the M$M never acknowledged this standard segment in his speeches. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matt Allison]

Peter Strzok: "On May 6, NARA emails Trump to say material is missing and may be at MAL. On May 9, Trump gets on a private plane from Palm Beach to Bedminster. On video, several boxes are seen loaded onto the plane."

https://wapo.st/3RV7H8Y

[Steve Thomas]

Donald Trump sues the world.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 8th day of September, 2022.

Donald M. Middlebrooks
United States District Judge

(7) I reserve jurisdiction to adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.267.0.pdf

 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs. It contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 “ABC Corporations” identified as fictitious and unknown entities.

 

To say that Plaintiff’s 193-page, 819-paragraph Amended Complaint is excessive in length would be putting things mildly. And to make matters worse, the Amended Complaint commits the “mortal sin” of incorporating by reference into every count all the general allegations and all the allegations of the preceding counts. See id. at 1323; see also Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282,
1284 (11th Cir. 2001).

 

Such a format hopelessly complicates any effort to untangle what facts apply to which claims or defendants.

 

The Amended Complaint also contains impermissible fictitious-party pleading. “As a general matter, fictitious-party pleading is not permitted in federal court.” Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties.”). A limited exception exists: “when the plaintiff’s description of the defendant is so specific as to be ‘at the very worst, surplusage.’” Id. (quoting Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210,
1215–16 (11th Cir. 1992)).
 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not describe the fictitious defendants with the requisite specificity to proceed against them in this fashion. He describes the John Doe defendants as “journalists, publishers, editors, investigators, state or federal officials, co-conspirators, officers, employees, agents, managers, owners, principals and/or other duly authorized individuals who caused or contributed to the incident or incidents for which the Plaintiff seeks damages[.]” (Am.
Compl. ¶ 44).

 

He describes the ABC corporations as “media companies, publication companies,
editorial companies, municipalities, state or federal agencies, law enforcement authorities, investigative agencies, political organizations, political affiliates, private firms and/or other duly authorized corporate or governmental entities who caused or contributed to the incident or incidents for which the Plaintiff seeks damages[.]” (Id. ¶ 45).

These descriptions do nothing to specifically identify the John Doe individuals or ABC corporations.

As a result, the fictitious individual and corporate defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

 

Steve Thomas

[Matt Allison]