Craziest Attack On Biden I've Ever Seen

I've seen some crazy political stuff on social media, but sometimes I encounter something that really takes the cake.

Case in point: when I pointed out to one particular woman how nakedly racist Donald Trump is, she actually responded with a laundry-list of attacks casting Joe Biden as the racist one.

No, really!

This line of attack is not really so old. It was most lately used by Nikki Haley in her bid for the Republican nomination in 2024. But it's still silly, regardless of whose mouth it comes out of.

I'm going to go through the entire list, and deal with them all. That's tiring, exhausting, and ought to be unnecessary in a sane world. But I love you all out there, and I love the truth, too. So it's worth a trudge through the weeds. But to keep things fun, I will also juxtapose that debunking with some of the many examples of Trump's blunt, obvious racism to remind the reader what a real racist looks like.

There were 14 lines of attack this oddball woman blasted at me, but I came across the original American Presidency Project web page and found that there were actually 23. What they show isn't a racist man, but rather one who tried to walk a tightrope between his constituents, who were not as liberal as he was when it came to integration, and his principles, which he didn't want to compromise, but did slightly in order to remain a Senator. In 1972, he was in favor of busing. But when his constituents loudly protested this, he changed his tune. By 1974, he took a nuanced but tough stand against school busing, while still arguing in favor of integration in other ways - something which allowed him to appease his more conservative constituents in Wilmington, Delaware, while still appearing progressive, at least on paper. He later came to regret this, but it was a calculated political move, not a racist one. Naturally, he's not the same man today.

Here is the worst the opposition can dig up about Biden's journey of self-change, compared with Trump's actual racist track record:

1) From 1971 to 1974, Biden's legal residence had a deed barring ownership by African Americans.

I believe it. My parent's old house on the north side of Milwaukee had a similar statement on its deed. (I remember being shocked when I saw it among their old papers after they passed!) But such phrases were standard inserts done by racist mortgage bankers during that era. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 rendered all such clauses illegal, but in the years that followed, many of the bankers kept putting the clause in anyway. Biden had no hand in it. So whether or not it was on the deed to Biden's home is moot. It wasn't Biden who wrote it, and it didn't legally count.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In 1973, Donald, his father, and Trump Management were sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination (along with some other property owners) because of a policy against renting apartments to African-Americans. The case was settled out of court to avoid negative publicity, but the charge was valid. Donald tried counter-suing the Justice Department for $100 million for making false statements. That counter-suit attempt was dismissed out of hand.

2) In 1974, Biden made an analogy of himself as a 29 year old in the Senate to being a "token black."

Biden did indeed say this. There's video footage of it. But he was joking about how he was able to raise money in a world where nobody wanted to contribute to a 29-year-old. In 1974, that was a joke that didn't raise much dander. It doesn't sound very good by today's standards, but it hardly makes Biden a racist.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: Perhaps Trump's most famous racist line is the one which he used when he first launched his presidential bid in 2015: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." [Why the HELL would anyone have to "assume" THAT part?!]

3) In 1975, Biden asked if "the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?"

Yes, Biden said this. There's a transcript of the entire interview here. But it's taken out of context. Biden was clarifying his opposition to busing. He didn't opposed it because he endorsed the racism of others who opposed it, but because he felt back then that it didn't accomplish its primary goal of integration. He felt instead that it encouraged quotas, which he said encouraged mediocrity. 

Now, that argument wouldn't fly today! It's a similar argument that's often been used against Affirmative Action measures. But since conservatives are universally using this same argument today, and they insist they are not racist for doing so, how can it be used to tarnish Biden as racist by 1975 standards?

Bear in mind, in this same interview, Biden was asked, "Could you support [George] Wallace [for president]?" To which Biden answers, "No, I could not support George Wallace as the Democratic presidential or vice-presidential candidate under any circumstances. He's the only one I could say that about for certain." Remember that quote, it will be important later on. He said other negative things about Wallace in that interview as well.

Actual Example of Racism by Donald Trump: It's a well-publicized fact that Trump kept and read a book of speeches by Adolf Hitler which he kept at his bedside. This revelation came from a 1990 interview in Vanity Fair, published shortly after Donald divorced his first wife, Ivana. The magazine reported: "Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, 'My New Order,' which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed." Vanity Fair reporter Marie Brenner followed up on this and asked Trump if his cousin had given up a copy of the book to him. Trump responded: "Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of 'Mein Kampf,' and he's a Jew." Brenner then asked Marty Davis whether he gave Trump a copy of the book. "I did give him a book about Hitler,' Davis told her. "But it was 'My New Order,' Hitler's speeches, not 'Mein Kampf.' I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I'm not Jewish."

4) In 1977, Biden said that busing would cause his children to grow up in "a racial jungle."

Yes, Biden said this in a hearing before a Senate Committee Hearing on the Judiciary. But again, this is taken out of context. He was again giving his nuanced opinion against busing. But before he did, he said this:

"We have a fundamental disagreement, you and I [referring to Sen. Martin Greenburg of New Jersey] I suspect, as to what is needed to insure that we do have orderly integration of society. [Emphasis mine.] I am not just talking about education but all of society."

These are not the words of a racist! He then goes on to say:

"Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this."

In other words, Biden was in favor of integration. He just didn't think busing was the way to do it.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: Perhaps Trump's most infamous quote was in reference to a horrible incident in Charlottesville, Virginia known as the 'Unite the Right Rally,' which took place on August 11th & 12th of 2017. Sparked by opposition to the removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee, it had large numbers of alt-right extremists, including neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right militias. Some groups chanted racist and anti-Semitic slogans and carried weapons. There were clearly visible Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, and Confederate battle flags, among others. On August 12th, these protesters clashed with counter-protesters and the scene turned violent. Governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and called in the National Guard to clear the area. As the crowds dispersed, a white supremacist plowed his truck into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing 1 and injuring 35 others. In Trump's initial statement following this tragedy, he famously said, "But we’re closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. [Emphasis mine.] It’s been going on for a long time in our country."

Now, to be absolutely fair, Trump did condemn hatred, bigotry, and violence. Right-wing talking heads seize upon this to insist Trump was not actually siding with the neo-Nazis and scream themselves hoarse about this. And Trump did indeed later exclude his statement from the neo-Nazi contingent of the crowd. But he did so belatedly. He did not immediately condemn the neo-Nazis. And the initial statement, which included the "on many sides, on many sides" comment, made it seem as though he were putting the white racists on equal moral footing with their protesters. Finally, two days later, he stepped up and said, "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

When a reporter followed up with Trump regarding this on August 15th, asking why it had taken 48 hours for this statement, Trump said, "...you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides." Again making moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and those who oppose them.

It should go without saying, but no one who marches with neo-Nazis, whether they were "just there to protest the removal of a statue" or not, counts as "very fine people."

Trump did backpedal. He did eventually qualify his initial statements. But it was too little, too late. This was an unforced error he made while speaking off-the-cuff, one which betrayed his true loyalties and racist nature. And he did it TWICE within three days. No spin-doctoring by right-wing apologists can change that.

5) In 1977, Biden voted against Black Justice Department nominees specifically over his opposition to busing.

True, but not the whole story. In fact, by now, it should be clear that Biden was one of the lone liberals opposing busing for reasons of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." Thing is, he already knew these nominees were foregone conclusions for approval. Biden cast his one vote against, not because he disapproved of the black justices themselves (in fact he openly praised them), but as a protest vote on the one issue he disagreed with them about.

Actual Example of Racism by Donald Trump: In April 2005, Trump appeared on the Howard Stern radio show, and proposed that the fourth season of The Apprentice would feature an exclusively white team of blondes competing against a team of only African-Americans. Stern asked Trump if that would start a "racial war", to which Trump replied: "it would be handled very beautifully by me ... I'm very diplomatic." Naturally, NBC rejected the proposal. When the actual fourth season of The Apprentice concluded, Trump dared to ask the male African-American winner of the season, Randal Pinkett, to share the honor with the runner-up, a white woman. Pinkett refused and rightly called Trump out for his racism.

6) In 1977, Biden said he asked to join the Senate Judiciary Committee specifically to lead the charge against busing.

Sensing a theme, here? I am. He was apparently successful in getting onto the committee. He was not successful in stopping busing.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: On Monday, November 7, 2016, the eve of the election, Trump mocked hip-hop music, criticizing a performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton. “The language is so bad and as they were singing – singing right? Was it talking or singing?"

7) In 1979, Biden voted to allow racially segregated private schools to keep their tax exempt status.

They key here is to note how those schools were "segregated." They didn't have actual segregated policies. Rather, housing and the phenomenon of "white flight" resulted in all-white schools in the deep suburbs. Biden even called these "white flight schools." Since Biden opposed busing, he was able to vote against the integration of those schools on anti-busing grounds. It was cold, but again, a politically calculated move. The people of Delaware are different today. So is Biden.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In 2011, Trump seized upon the conspiracy theory, originally launched by certain Hillary Clinton supporters, that Barack Obama's birth certificate wasn't real, that he was born overseas, and that he therefore wasn't a U.S. Citizen. It made him a hero on FoxNews. This was debunked right away by newspaper articles announcing Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii. Obama himself eventually released a scan of his birth certificate to the press, though he insisted for a time he shouldn't have to for such ridiculous nonsense. Nevertheless, Trump continued to insist Obama was foreign-born for years afterward. Even after 2017, when he finally begrudgingly admitted Obama's birth certificate was genuine, he privately muttered that he doubted whether it was real. This was undoubtedly the point in Trump's life when he realized just how powerful the Right Wing Media Cult truly was.

8) In 1981, Biden said George Wallace was "right about some things."

This is severely misleading. This was at a different Judiciary hearing, and Biden again reiterated his pro-integration stance while insisting busing was not the way to do it. He then went on to say:

"One of the reasons I was reluctant to say anything is that I did not want to be associated with these folks [meaning Wallace or his like]. I did not like being near them. I did not want to be with them. I did not want to be any part of it. I figured, if George Wallace was saying it, then it had to be bad."

Here, Biden is interrupted by someone who says, "You were right then, Senator."

Biden continues, "I am right. I was right then about him and his motivation. But sometimes even George Wallace is right about some things."

Clearly, this was giving only a very slight concession to Wallace after completely damning him. Not exactly a Wallace sympathizer, was he?

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In 2013, the State of New York filed a $40 million civil suit against Trump University alleging that the company had made false statements and defrauded consumers. Two class-action civil lawsuits were also filed naming Trump personally as well as his companies. During the presidential campaign, Trump criticized Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel who oversaw those two cases, alleging bias in his rulings because he is "a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage." (Although his parents immigrated from Mexico, Judge Curiel is an American citizen, born in East Chicago, Indiana.) Trump said that Curiel would have "an absolute conflict" due to his Mexican heritage which led to accusations of racism. Immediately following this, the Speaker of the House, Republican Paul Ryan (Wisconsin), who was also a Trump supporter, commented, "I disavow these comments. Claiming a person can't do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."

9) In 1984, Biden used the word "boy" to refer to Jesse Jackson.

Misleading. Here's the actual quote:

"He [Jackson] is one of the brightest guys around. That boy ain’t no dummy, just like Gary Hart, that boy ain’t no dummy either."

Both Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson were Democratic candidates for president that year. (The nomination would eventually go to Walter Mondale.) But Biden correctly pointed out that he also used the term "boy" on Gary Hart, who was white. He said he didn't intend the term to be racially disparaging against Jesse Jackson and apologized. In fact, it's quite obvious in context that Biden was giving Jackson a compliment.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: On August 19, 2015, two white men (who later pled guilty to the attack) assaulted a man who was sleeping outside a subway station in Boston. Police detained the assailants, and one of them confessed his motivation for the attack: "Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported." When Trump was informed about the incident later that day at a news conference, he responded without condemning the men at all! He said: "I haven’t heard about that. It would be a shame...I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again."

10) In 1985, Biden made a favorable comparison between segregationist Senator John Stennis and Confederate General Stonewall Jackson.

In other words, Biden is a racist, not for saying actual racist things, but merely by giving a compliment, that's all, just a compliment, about a segregationist Senator from the Deep South - one of the last of the conservative Dixiecrats before all the Southern conservatives switched their allegiance to the Republican party (because that's where all the racism migrated to from the 60's through the 90's).

We need to know something about John C. Stennis. He was indeed a supporter of segregation. He was also an opponent of the voting rights acts of the 1960's. But Stennis later came around and reformed. He made no apology for his earlier views, but came to embrace civil rights. Biden wrote about it in his autobiography 'Promises to Keep.' He described an encounter with the older senator in 1989 when Stennis retired and Biden moved into his old office. Biden recounts him saying, "You see this table, Joe? This table was the flagship of the Confederacy from 1954 to 1968. We sat here, most of us from the Deep South, the old Confederacy, and we planned the demise of the civil rights movement. And we lost. And, Joe, now it’s time that this table go from the possession of a man who was against civil rights to a man who was for civil rights." Stennis later said, "The civil rights movement did more to free the white man than the black man." When Biden gave him a quizzical look, Stennis pounded his chest and said, "It freed my soul. It freed my soul."

Bear this in mind later on, because Stennis will be referenced again.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: At a rally in Birmingham, Alabama on November 21, 2015, Trump falsely claimed that he had seen television reports about "thousands and thousands" of Arab Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the World Trade Center collapsed during the 9/11 attacks. This, of course, never happened. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Trump doubled-down on the assertion, insisting that "there were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations."

11) In 1987, Biden "sought to appeal to white voters" by touting an award he received from George Wallace in 1973 where he praised Biden as "one of the outstanding young politicians in America."

Once again, the old "guilt by association and not actual position" is being played.

First, for those who don't know, George Wallace was a segregationist who left the Democratic party and campaigned as an independent opposing segregation in 1968, acting as a spoiler against Lyndon Johnson's VP Hubert Humphrey, who helped Johnson pass the Voting Rights Act. This helped secure Richard Nixon the White House. Since then, Wallace has been remembered by historians as one of the most nakedly racist politicians in history.

There's no record of Biden ever receiving an award from George Wallace. But it's just possible that in 1973, Wallace may have had enough lingering sympathies towards the Democratic party that he praised Joe Biden. But that's a far cry from Biden endorsing Wallace's views, and by the same token, doesn't mean Wallace entirely endorsed Biden's, either.

Remember #3 above? Where Biden said that he wouldn't endorse Wallace no matter what? I told you that would be key later on. Yeah. Biden never really liked Wallace. Never.

Actual Example of Racism by Donald Trump: In his 1991 book 'Trumped!' John O'Donnell quoted Trump as allegedly saying: "I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks." Trump later told Playboy magazine in an interview published in 1997, "The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true." (Two years later, when seeking the nomination of the Reform Party for president, Trump finally denied having made the statement.)

12) During his 1988 campaign, Biden falsely claimed he was part of the civil rights movement, saying he "marched" in his "youth."

There was an incident in Delaware in February of 1959 (Biden would have been 16) in which the desegregation of a place called Collins Park was protested. Biden says he was there, but it's unclear what exactly he was doing. In earlier versions of the story, Biden says that police "took him home." Much later, on the Howard Stern Show in 2022, Biden said he'd "been arrested."

There's no record of any role the young Biden may have played in this incident. His earlier accounts that police picked him up and took him home are probably more believable than the ones he told later in life. FactCheck.org rated Biden's claim as false. That's fair, in so much as he certainly wasn't "arrested." But that's a far cry from being a racist. He probably did participate in the pro-civil-rights demonstrations in some way. But we'll probably never really know for sure.

Actual Example of Racism by Donald Trump: On April 19, 1989, a white woman named Trisha Meili was brutally raped in Central Park. Police arrested five young black and Latino men and charged them with the crime. They came to be known as "The Central Park Five." They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced. Trump took out full page ads in the New York papers on May 1st, 1989, calling for these five to receive the death penalty. But later, in 2001, a man named Matias Reyes confessed to the crime. Based on that confession, the case was re-tried in 2002, and DNA evidence exonerated the Central Park Five. (They were later known as "The Exonerated Five.") Trump never retracted or apologized for his attempt to have these five minority men executed. Furthermore, a slightly earlier highly-publicized rape and murder of a black woman (May 4, 1989) who was thrown off a four-story roof, received no attention from Trump at all. And in June 2019 in response to Ken Burns' documentary and the Netflix miniseries 'When They See Us,' Trump doubled down on his previous statements, saying "You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt."

13) In 2006, Biden said, "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

Biden did indeed say this. But here's the complete quote:

"I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking,"

Now, obviously he probably meant to say something like, "You can't go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts without hearing a slight Indian accent." But however he meant to phrase it, he clearly was trying to pay a compliment to Indian-Americans, not disparage them.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In August 2016 Trump campaigned in Maine, which has a large immigrant Somali population. At a rally he said, "We've just seen many, many crimes getting worse all the time, and as Maine knows—a major destination for Somali refugees—right, am I right?" But the police chief of Lewiston, Maine (which is home to the largest population of Maine Somalis), set the record straight. He said Somalis had integrated into the city and they had not caused an increase in crime. In fact, he said, crime was actually going down, not up.

14) In his 2007 book, 'Promises To Keep,' Biden admitted that, as a young person, he had "no real relationships with black people."

Yeah, I'll buy that. Then he became the VP of the first black president. I dare say he found a real relationship with a black person.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: The number of racist Tweets Trump put out on Twitter are too numerous to recount here. But during his 2016 campaign, he was found to have retweeted the main influencers of the #WhiteGenocide movement over 75 times! Twice he even retweeted a user with the handle @WhiteGenocideTM.

15) In 2007, Biden called then-Sen. Barack Obama "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

Yeah, this one was a gaff. Obviously Barack Obama wasn't the first. He wasn't even the first to have run for president. (Jesse Jackson or Ambassador Alan Keyes come to mind.) But a slight gaff like this is hardly indicative that one is a racist, and saying so is just wishful thinking. At this point in the "list," people are just piling on for the sake of piling on.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In June 2016, at a rally in Redding, California, Trump pointed to a man in the audience—Gregory Cheadle, a real estate broker—and said, "Look at my African American over here. Look at him. Are you the greatest?" Cheadle later declared in 2019 that he was so unhappy with Trump's "white superiority complex" and the "pro-white" Republican Party's usage of blacks as "political pawns" that he was leaving the Republican Party.

16) In 2010, Biden delivered a 22-minute eulogy, the longest speech, at Senator Robert Byrd's (D-WV) memorial service, calling the former KKK member a "friend," "mentor," and "guide."

Again, this is an attempt at "guilt by association." A similar line of attack was levied against Hillary Clinton in 2016. But Robert Byrd was a reformed man. A former KKK member who spoke out against his former views later in life. Why not eulogize such a man? We should champion such transformations, not cite them as a way to demonize others.

Actual Example of Racism by Donald Trump: In the late 90's, Indian casinos were beginning to compete with Trump's Atlantic City casinos, threatening his investments there. So, working with Roger Stone, he spent millions on an advertising campaign criticizing the proposal of building more Native American casinos in the Catskill Mountains. The ads, falsely claiming to be funded by "grass-roots, pro-family" donors, alluded to Mohawk Indians doing cocaine and bringing violence, asking: "Are these the new neighbors we want?" In 2000, Trump and his associates were fined $250,000 for this stunt and forced to publicly apologize.

17) In 2016, Biden praised segregationist Senator John Stennis as a "friend" and an "honorable" man.

Remember #10 above? Stennis was opposed to civil rights at first. But he reformed later on. Although he never apologized for his former views, and he only did so after his side lost, he expressed relief that the civil rights side of the argument won. That's why Biden called him "honorable."

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In a February 2017 presidential press conference, White House press correspondent April Ryan (a black woman) asked Trump if he would involve the Congressional Black Caucus when making plans for executive orders affecting inner city areas. Trump replied, "Well, I would. I tell you what. Do you want to set up the meeting?" Ryan responded that she was just a reporter. Trump then said, "Are they friends of yours?" The New York Times later wrote that Trump was "apparently oblivious to the racial undertones of posing such a query to a black journalist". Another journalist, Jonathan Capehart commented, "Does he think that all black people know each other and she's going to go run off and set up a meeting for him?"

18) In 2019, Biden recalled the era when "he was able to get along with segregationist senators."

"Getting along with" and agreeing with are two totally different things. Duh.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: Also, when a member of the Congressional Black Caucus told Trump that cuts to welfare programs would hurt her constituents, "not all of whom are black", Trump had a tone-deaf moment. He replied, "Really? Then what are they?" (Most welfare recipients are actually white.)

19) In 2019, Biden boasted that segregationist Senator James Eastland called him son, not boy.

Here's the full quote: "I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland. He never called me boy. He always called me son."

So what? It's true, Eastland was a segregationist from Mississippi. But cordiality and civility between people does not equate to them always agreeing. If anything, it just shows Biden is nice to everybody.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In June 2017, Trump called together a staff meeting to complain about the number of immigrants who had entered the country since his inauguration. The New York Times reported that two officials heard Trump read off a sheet stating that 15,000 persons had visited from Haiti, at which point he commented, "They all have AIDS." And when he read further that 40,000 persons had visited from Nigeria, he said that after seeing America the Nigerians would never "go back to their huts." Both officials who heard Trump's statements relayed them to other staff members at the time, but the White House denied the quotes.

20) In 2019, Biden said the Obama administration went "into the hood" of Detroit to recruit minorities.

How, for the love of Pete, does a white politician simply using the word "hood" get taken as racism?

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In January of 2018, Trump referred to Haiti, African nations, and El Salvador as "shithole countries." (Remember that one?)

21) In 2019, Biden claimed a major problem Black communities face is illiteracy, saying Black "parents can't read or write themselves," leaving Black attendees "shocked and frustrated."

Biden made this gaff in a private meeting with black mayors in Georgia, and it was in 2018, not 2019. But the quote was resurrected in the New York Times in 2019 just as Biden was preparing for the primary vote in North Carolina. At the time, he was polling a distant fifth place for the Democratic nomination, trailing behind Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar. As such, the New York Times article recounted that earlier gaff, and took the position that Biden was in trouble. But then Biden spoke with the pastor of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, where white supremacist Dylan Roof had shot 9 people during a service in 2015. Biden related the loss of his own son and sympathized, reminding him that he'd visited the congregation after that tragedy when he was Obama's VP. In so doing, he won over that minister, and with him, the entire black vote of North Carolina. He then carried North Carolina by such a wide margin that nearly all the other Democratic candidates dropped out.

It's quite clear that black voters remembered why they liked Biden in the first place. Had Biden been seen as racist, he couldn't have gotten as far as he did.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: Remember Hurricane Maria? In September 2017, after Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico and decimated services across the island, the Mayor of San Juan Carmen Yulín Cruz went on television to plea for help and accused the federal response of fatal inefficiency. Trump responded with a series of tweets claiming that the Puerto Rican leadership were "not able to get their workers to help" because "They want everything to be done for them" while claiming that federal workers were doing a "fantastic job." But the death toll on the island reached into the thousands (something to bear in mind as Trump criticizes the response to Hurricane Helene, whose death toll, despite huge infrastructure damage, is only about 250 so far). Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and others criticized the federal government and suggested that racism was partially to blame for the insufficient response. Given Trump's cavalier attitude while tossing rolls of paper towels to Puerto Rican residents afterward, that assessment was undoubtedly correct. Puerto Ricans were the wrong ethnicity for Trump to care!

22) In 2019, Biden said that "poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."

Yes, this is one of Biden's classic gaffs. But one he apologized for, and one that doesn't necessarily indicate some sort of innate racism. He made the remarks in Iowa before the caucus there, but as the overwhelming support of blacks in North Carolina later showed, he was forgiven for this particular mistake.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In August of 2016, Colin Kaepernick made headlines by kneeling during national anthems at football games to protest police brutality against black people. Trump weighed in saying, "I think it's personally not a good thing, I think it's a terrible thing. And, you know, maybe he should find a country that works better for him. Let him try, it won't happen."

23) In 2020, Biden suggested some people were able to quarantine during Covid because "some black woman was able to stack the grocery shelf."

If this were a racist remark, what could it even mean? It makes no sense!

Actually, Biden was quoting a realization he believed the American public was having about the diversity of essential workers. Here's the complete quote:

"Because the American public, the blinders have been taken off. They all of the sudden see a hell of a lot clearer. They see, ‘Jeez, The reason I was able to stay sequestered in my home is because some Black woman was able to stack the grocery shelf, or a young Hispanic is out there, these dreamers are out there, 60,000 of them acting as first responders and nurses and docs.’ Or all of the sudden people are realizing, ‘My lord, you know, these people have done so much. Not just Black, white, across the board have done so much for me. We can do this. We can get things done.'"

In other words, many people could self-isolate against Covid thanks to a racially diverse workforce stepping up. Could Biden have phrased this better? Sure! But is it a racist remark? In context, no.

Actual Example of Racism by Trump: In her 2012 campaign for the Senate, Elizabeth Warren's opponent raised accusations concerning Warren's having listed partial Native American ancestry on her profile in a faculty directory. Warren denies that she ever claimed to be a minority for the purpose of securing employment, but one of her distant ancestors was Native American. But Trump sensed a controversy, and has freuently referred to her as "Pocahontas" ever since. He even did so at a White House event where he addressed Native American veterans who served in the US military during World War II. Warren responded: "It was deeply unfortunate that the President of the United States cannot even make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without throwing out a racial slur."

****

In the end, most of these attacks against Biden amount to Biden's stand against busing, or being civil towards the opposition, or just making gaffs. But it's clear that in his heart of hearts, Biden is not a racist. Trump is exactly the opposite. His racism is so bone-crunchingly obvious that I can scarcely believe he ever got one, single vote from anyone.

Meanwhile, we haven't even listed all of Trump's many racist quotes and tells. Things like proposing an idiotic border wall, or reversing Obama's guidelines on race being a factor to consider in college admissions, turning our nations military on unarmed, civilian migrant caravans, or delaying the replacing of racist Andrew Jackson on the twenty-dollar bill with Harriet Tubman until 2026, or telling the four female Congresswomen of "The Squad" to "go back to their countries" (even though all but one is a naturally-born US citizen), or attacking Baltimore Representative Elijah Cummings, or calling Jewish voters who support Democrats "disloyal," or inciting racist mass shootings such as the one in El Paso, Texas in August of 2019. The list goes on, and on, and on.

There's recognizing Trump as a racist, or there's being absolutely brain-dead. There's really no in-between at this point.

Eric

**

Trump Tries Deflecting His Mental Decline Onto Kamala

In recent days, the Trumpsters have taken on an odd, new tactic. With Trump in more and more obvious mental decline, they've sought to head off criticisms about his mental fitness... by saying Kamala Harris is the one who is mentally unfit!

This is absolutely precious, to say nothing of ridiculous. But read on.

It's an old tactic, one Trump's used before. It was perhaps most famously mocked on Saturday Night live back in 2016, when Alec Baldwin portrayed Trump's characteristic deflection by saying, "Hillary has a kind of orange tint to her skin, except for that part right around the eyes..."

But that level of obviousness hasn't kept Trump from resorting to that tactic again and again. It's ridiculous, of course, and no supporters of Harris will fall for it, but it might just work to prevent some of his loyal followers from having their delusional Trump-spell broken.

Last Friday, in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, Trump said, "Joe Biden became mentally impaired, but Kamala was just born that way."

Oh really? Earlier in that same speech, Trump bragged about his crowd sizes, saying, "It looked like when Lindburgh landed in New York. Remember that?"

1) Charles Lindburgh didn't land in New York. He landed in France. And 2) no, Donny, nobody's old enough to remember that, not even you!

And later in that same speech, Trump said, "She [Kamala] started the 'Defund the Police' movement."

She obviously did no such thing. The 'Defund the Police' movement was started by the Black Visions Collective shortly after the killing of George Floyd. Oh, Kamala did say some positive things about the 'Defund the Police' thing, but they were ambiguous at best. What she actually said was, "This whole movement is about rightly saying, 'we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities.'" In other words, we need to ask whether we should we be spending so much on police while not spending enough money on schools and social programs. That's sympathetic to 'Defund the Police' a little, but remains a far cry from endorsing it, much less "starting" it.

On Monday, in Erie, Pennsylvania, Trump repeated the accusation that Kamala is mentally impaired. Only this time, he added, "There's something wrong with Kamala. And I just don't know what it is, but there's definitely something missing, and you know what? Everybody knows it."

The 'everybody knows it,' is a nice touch. Because it's exactly what I've been telling the Trumpers I encounter on social media regarding Trump's mental lapses. Trump has this odd tendency to absorb the accusations levied against him and then repeat them as though they actually applied to his opponents. (So I can't be the only one.) We've seen it before. And saying, "I don't know what it is," is calculated. He doesn't dare name whatever malady he's accusing Kamala of having, because if he does, it becomes that much more obvious he has zero evidence whatsoever.

What's even odder is that earlier that same day, in Valdosta, Georgia, Trump said, regarding the damage wreaked by hurricane Helene, "It’s so extensive, nobody thought this would be happening — especially now it’s so late in the season for the hurricanes."

Yeah, except it's not. Hurricane season goes through the end of November. Just like it has every other year since before the National Weather Service was even founded.

That same day, Trump also said, "We do need some help from the federal government, they have to get together - ideally with the governor, that governor needs to, uh, he's been trying to get them and, uh, I'm sure they're going to come through. But, uh, he's been calling the president, hasn't been able to get - him."

Except the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, said exactly the opposite earlier that day, saying that he did, in fact, speak with president Biden, who was giving him everything he needed.

So once again, on the same day Trump levied the accusation of mental unfitness against Kamala Harris, Trump had two mental lapses, just like he had at least two mental lapses the Friday before in Wisconsin.

Hey, I'm not afraid to show you what they want you to see. A video compilation of Kamala's "word salads" can be found here. But all this demonstrates is the art of talking a lot without saying anything. Politicians do it all the time. In other words, it's not mental unfitness, it's just politics as usual.

And that's all they got?

Yep, that's all they got.

Meanwhile, you only have to go back to last Thursday, when Trump was giving a speech in Michigan, to hear him go off on yet another cognitively incoherent rant about something. Seeing people leaving his rally, he apparently panicked and said, "I want to say something: the people that you see leaving - because nobody ever leaves, and if they do I finish up quick, believe me - but I couldn't take pictures at the beginning. So I take them at the end sometimes, if I'm late, the plane gets late, you get delayed, lots of things happen, there's a little hurricane going on in Florida as you know [a LITTLE hurricane?!], and, uh, so, what they do is they say, 'Oh, please come up now,' at the end of my speech. I said, 'DON'T DO THAT!' 'Cause it looks like they're leaving, like your husband who owns the place."

Fucking HUH?! 

Go back a couple days before that, and Trump was seen briefly drooling on himself in the middle of a speech. Then 45 minutes later, revealed that he'd only just learned that Russia had a hand in defeating the Nazis! Who knew!

And one only has to go back less than a week before that to see Trump having an unbelievable lapse on the Gutfeld show on Fox News. While complaining loudly about the way he felt the moderators treated him unfairly during the presidential debate, correcting him on his conspiracy theories while not correcting Kamala at all, he said, "And the audience was absolutely - they went crazy."

WHAT audience?! The debate was in a studio! There was no audience!

And only a week before that, while giving a press conference near Los Angeles, after mispronouncing Gavin Newsom's name (he said "Gavin Newscum"), he said, "So you have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snowcaps and Canada, and all pouring down. And they have a, essentially, a very large faucet. And you turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn it, it's massive. It's as big as the wall of that building, right there, behind you. And you turn that and all of that water goes into the - aimlessly into the Pacific. And if they turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right down into Los Angeles."

Holy fuck.

Needless to say, there is no faucet. The closest thing that comes to something like what Trump is describing is the Hugh Keenleyside Dam, which is one of three Canadian dams regulating water coming from the Columbia River south into the U.S. And what's weird is, that's the dam that's the furthest upstream! And the Columbia only flows as far south as the border between Washington and Oregon. So even if all three dams were opened completely, the water wouldn't flow into Los Angeles, not without a massive series of aquifers.

This is yet another example of Trump hearing some crazy shit on conservative media and regurgitating it without any filtration whatsoever.

And only a week before that, Trump was caught babbling incoherently when asked a simple question about what he would do to make child care more affordable. And after giving a convoluted word-salad response, he insinuated that his increased tariffs would offset the higher costs of childcare without saying how exactly that would work. I covered that in detail in my blog post here. It was a breathtaking mental lapse.

On August 18th, Trump shouted out to North Carolina. Problem was, he was actually in Pennsylvania.

He's in decline. And he can't seem to go one week without making some huge gaff which makes it that much more obvious.

If you really think Kamala's the one mentally unfit, you haven't been paying attention.

Eric

**

Fox's "The Five" Is The Craziest Of Crazy

Some disinformation shows are truly insidious, taking the art of misinformation to a whole new level of absurd.

Case in point is the Fox "News" program called 'The Five.' Conceived, apparently, as an antidote to the popular daytime program 'The View,' and launched after Glenn Beck went off the air around 2011. Five panelists toss out nothing but opinion with very little fact-checking in a way that totally muddies the water. Four hyper-right-wingers, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, Jesse Watters, and Judge Jeanine Pirro regularly beat up on a token liberal (usually Jessica Tarlov, although sometimes it's Harold Ford, Jr. or, more rarely, Geraldo Rivera), whose job is apparently to get shouted down and ridiculed at every step. And this is easy to do since it's a 4-to-1 advantage.

To highlight how they operate, let's take the program from last Friday. Dana Perino kicks it off by saying, "Illegal immigrant murderers and rapists are roaming free in America. Those are stunning new details revealed just hours before Kamala Harris' first border visit in more than three years. ICE officials releasing stunning data revealing more than 425,000 convicted illegal criminals, they're just -- walking the streets. Including over 13,000 convicted of homicide and some 15,000 of sexual assault."

Now, obviously this is deliberately timed to thwart Kamala's efforts to peel off some of Trump's supporters who make border security their main issue. It shouldn't really be a hard sell. Trump derailed a bipartisan border deal, and then had the audacity to actually campaign on that. All Kamala really needs to do is remind Americans of this, and then ask, "Oh, yeah, whatever happened to that border wall Trump promised? Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for it?"

But that doesn't stop Dana Perino. She kicks it over to several sound bytes of Trump saying that Kamala Harris is responsible for such horrible things. Best example:

"They're dumping them in our country and I never had proof. And I can finally look at them and see... say, 'I told you so!' to the fake news."

They then cut to earlier clips of Kamala singing a bit of a different tune when it came to supporting immigration reform and a border wall, as if people can't change their mind about things.

Greg Gutfeld chimes in, "In the real world, she [Kamala] would be toast. And I don't like getting riled up for no reason, because this story is so unbelievable, I wanted to see if it was reported elsewhere, you know, I couldn't find it on MSNBC, CNN, Drudge, you have the release of hundreds of thousands of, uh, of foreign criminals, like they emptied the jails, raped... thousands of rapists, thousands of murderers, and on the pages of all of these networks the death of Maggie Smith - which is sad, great actress - Lana Del Rey's marriage, uh, PTD rumors, but nothing about what is easily one of the most big - probably the biggest crime story I've ever seen. So, we know that Democrats watch this show, uh, and some of them hate-watching, but if you're watching this, the media doesn't want you to know this information. They don't want it to reach you. They would rather you die, or be raped, than Trump be right, or find out the truth. So you can hate Fox all you want, you can hate Trump all you want, you can hate me, but you - you can't hate yourself and your family so much that you gonna ignore a story that puts them in danger. Now, even if these numbers are off by 50%, please, I think that the fact-checkers should fact-check it. You know, tell, tell us, 'No, it's not 60,000 rapists, it's only 8,000.' 'It's only 7,000 murders.' Cool, I'm glad you're okay with that. I'm - I'll take your fact-check. But anybody who defends this, or says it's not that big a deal is complicit, uh, and they should be held accountable, every victim of every crime by the people that are in here, uh, that we haven't vilified who are actual villains... you need to file a class-action suit against this government."

And that's how you get your own show on Fox "News." By being that extreme.

Thing is, it was fact-checked. CNN jumped on this almost immediately, or at least they did after this crap was regurgitated by Trump on Saturday. (Right on cue, because Trump gets his talking points from TV shows like this one.) Gutfeld was surprised that this wasn't covered by anybody else, including Drudge. Well, this is why: The facts were radically different from the way The Five were "reporting" it. The statistics released were not exclusively from the Biden-Harris administration. No, they actually went back decades, including those allowed in during the Trump years (going back 40 years or more), recording all criminality of extant illegals, over all that time, most of whom are currently still in jail.

In other words, the statistics weren't half as bad, or even one quarter as bad. They were a tiny fraction of that!

This is why not even Drudge would touch it. It was a shit story.

Gutfeld goes on, "You know, these bastards were more offended by stories of cats being eaten than real stories being reported here of rape and murder."

Oh, thanks for admitting they were only stories, Greg!

"And if you ask why those other stories existed, it was the only way to get these A-holes in the media to even look at this story."

Oh, they looked at this story, all right. They saw that the Haitian migrants were legal, that pets weren't being eaten, and that you were all so full of shit that you were willing to exploit the situation in Springfield for cheap political points which revealed endemic racism within your ticket. Congratulations! I'm sure the made-up story did exactly what you intended.

This crap went on for ten minutes straight before token-liberal Jessica Tarlov was finally given a word edge-wise. And she actually scored a few good jabs. I was impressed. But then she was shouted down by the other four, as she always is.

And this is where it gets really insidious: because this occasional insertion of liberal talking points doesn't actually get through the bubble and make the audience think twice. It actually inures the viewing audience against those liberal talking points, because it looks like the points were made and then shot down (as opposed to being given a fair evaluation). Thus, when people encounter those talking points online in social media (if one can even penetrate that social media bubble anymore, because the algorithms prevent interactions of that kind) the Trumpers laugh it off, as if the points weren't legitimate. Because to their minds, those points were already shot down (though in actuality, they only appeared to have been shot down by infotainment theatrics).

But every once in awhile the truth leaks through. Like in this aforementioned Trump quote:

"They're dumping them in our country and I never had proof. And I can finally look at them and see... say, 'I told you so!' to the fake news."

You never had proof, huh? Thanks for admitting it! And, guess what? You still don't!

This is the reality of the world in which we live. In order to keep a junkie hooked, suppliers refine their drug to be more and more potent. This Right-Wing Media Cult drug is now so potent that it's a lie-per-second misinfo-blast, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

And this is why a convicted felon, rapist, insurrectionist, losing his marbles moron actually has any followers at all.

Eric

**

Pure Hatred

This post should be the end of it. In a sane world, that is.

The raw, unbridled hatred on display says it all. This isn't an outlier. This is who Donald Trump is. This asshole. This scumbag. This hate-monger.

So why does the election remain close? Why isn't it a slam-dunk for Kamala? What's the secret to his political competitiveness in spite of the above raw, naked, front-facing admission that he's a lousy human being who made a lousy president and will undoubtedly do so again?

Sadly, it's the Right Wing Media Cult. FoxNews, OANN, Newsmax, Salem Media Group, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity. It has made all his followers into "little Trumps." And, because Trump is a complete asshole, his followers are also "little assholes."

As such, even if Trump loses (and I think he will), the "Trumpification" of the populace will remain a problem. What do we do with nearly half a voting population who is actually willing to vote for the absolute worst human being on the planet? How do we "un-asshole" all those people?

The answer, as I keep repeating, is a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Our news outlets cannot be unbiased on their own. If left to their own devices, they will always gravitate towards partisanship in order to beef up ratings. We need rules which essentially say, at least as far as the news is concerned, "Fuck the ratings! Be impartial!"

And we need it so very immediately.

Eric

**

Dealing with Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz is leaving the Democratic Party. It was a long time in coming. The reason, he says, is because of the awful anti-Israel sentiment he saw during the DNC, but inside observers tell us that was likely a contrived excuse. Dershowitz was headed out the door long ago.

Fox News loves the guy. They adore parading him around every time he calls the Trump hush-money trial a "sham." Many in Trump-world believe, fervently, that Trump is innocent and was only found guilty because the D.A. and legal system of New York had it in for him.

Dershowitz is the primary reason why they have this stupid, stubborn belief.

He's also been a Right-Wing Media Cult favorite ever since he represented Trump in his first impeachment trial. Many observers wondered what the hell Dershowitz was doing. Many more were baffled at the questionable arguments he made. The move severely hurt his standing in the jurisprudence community. But he has piloted this new infamy into stardom within the Trumposphere, and he seems unperturbed by this.

As such, I thought it was time to do a deep-dive into the man, and his arguments, and then present some counterarguments.

Getting Dershowitz' viewpoint isn't difficult. He has a podcast ("The Dershow") in which he constantly rails against various injustices he sees within the system. The Trump hush-money trial is a favorite refrain of his. But then I tried getting the other side, looking for legal scholars who argued back Dershowitz' points, and presented a different perspective.

To my shock and horror, I found that there weren't any! Or if there were, they were being squelched by search-engine algorithms. On conservative media, Dershowitz is absolutely everywhere! But in more centrist and left-leaning media, people are pretending that Dershowitz simply doesn't exist.

I feel strongly that this is a severe tactical error! We're getting out-flanked by someone who was once considered one of Liberalism's greatest champions, and doing nothing about it except burying our heads in the sand! This is simply bone-headed. We need to deal with Dershowitz.

And, as usual, because nobody else is saying anything, I have to.

I'm no legal scholar. I'm an accountant, so I know something about finances, and I'm very close to a second degree in biology, so I know something about science. I've been a theologian for over 40 years, so I know something about religion. But I haven't dealt with anything legal since I took a course in business law back in 1999. So as I research Dershowitz' points, pitting myself against one of the greatest legal minds of our era, I'm really punching above my weight. I realize this. But again, nobody else is willing to step into the ring.

But I'm one hell of a quick-study. Watch this!

At the heart of Dershowitz' arguments is the fervent belief that even the lowest scumbag deserves a fair hearing in court. This has always been his position. To do this well, he concocts scenarios in which his client might be innocent, and then passionately defends this position as though it were entirely true. This makes him good at his job. But it also makes him credulous, in a way. Many of the devils this "Devil's Advocate" has defended in the past have been shady characters. But the system is supposed to work fairly, even for them, according to Dershowitz.

To that end, Dershowitz fervently believes that, had he been the defense attorney in the Trump hush money case, that he would have won. He might well be right. Despite his recent gaffs, he remains brilliant. But like many brilliant minds before him, he is very capable of outsmarting himself, and has done so rather spectacularly.

Dershowitz says that only two moments determine guilt or innocence in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case. The first is a meeting (Dershowitz calls it an "alleged meeting") in which Trump, Michael Cohen, and Trump's CFO Alan Weisselberg came up with the plan to pay the hush money to Stormy Daniels. These are the only three people who could testify to this event, as he tells it. And the crime isn't Trump paying the hush money. The crime is Trump passing these funds off as "legal expenses," paying them out of campaign funds under false pretext. (That's fraud.) Of the three, the only one who actually testified is Michael Cohen, who Dershowitz insists is lying. So, after dismissing Cohen's testimony, he asks, "Where's Alan Weisselberg?" He correctly surmises that the only side which could realistically call Weisselberg to the stand would be the prosecution, because if the defense did so, Weisselberg could simply plead the Fifth. But if the prosecution has him testify, they could do a plea deal. The fact that they couldn't get a plea deal indicates, to Dershowitz' thinking, that Weisselberg was going to testify that the meeting never took place, and the prosecution didn't want that.

Now, this is dubious at best. If Weisselberg were to testify that the meeting never took place, the defense would absolutely call him to the witness stand! But they didn't. Why? Because they knew he might not testify that way. Weisselberg was already in jail for perjuring himself regarding Trump undervaluing his properties as a tax dodge! (In fact, he's still in jail.) He was certainly not about to perjure himself for Trump yet again! But the fact that the prosecution couldn't get him to flip on Trump mostly means that Weisselberg thought his best shot at freedom was clamming up, and hoping Trump would pardon him after he (the man hoped) wins the November election. The prosecutors in the hush-money case could probably only offer a reduced sentence, and Weisselberg said, "Thanks, but no thanks." He'd rather have a full pardon sooner than a reduced sentence which ends later.

And Dershowitz thinks his absence is exonerating evidence?

Now, empirically, he's got a bit of a point in that it's a hole in the prosecution's argument. The jury was, in essence, expected to take Cohen's word for it, and he'd already been proven in court to have lied under oath. He did two years' worth of jail time for it. So why should he be believed? Because previously, Cohen lied for Trump. And that means he is more likely than not to be telling the truth after his employment by Trump came to an inglorious end.

The jury caught on to this. Dershowitz somehow did not.

Yet this missing witness is a huge point for Dershowitz, and he was disappointed the defense didn't make a bigger issue of it. Again, this goes directly to Dershowitz' belief that he could have done a better job, and therefore (to his mind) Trump didn't get a fair shake. But is that a legitimate viewpoint, or simply narcissism?

Dershowitz' second moment of guilt or innocence involves the 89-second call in which Trump's former bodyguard, Keith Schiller, was allegedly called by Michael Cohen in order to discuss the payout money to Stormy Daniels with Trump. Schiller was not called to testify, likely because he is still loyal to Trump, and prosecutors had no way to compel him to testify. But Dershowitz feels that his absence is crucial, since he's the only other person who could corroborate anything Cohen said. On the witness stand, Cohen was grilled hotly by the defense regarding this alleged phone call. Some text messages were presented in which Cohen complained to Schiller about receiving prank phone calls, and those messages were sent just before Cohen made this particular phone call. According to the defense, the phone call to Schiller was in regard to those prank calls, and not about the Stormy Daniels payout. Cohen countered that he didn't believe that was accurate.

Taken by itself, Dershowitz could have had a point, here. But why would Cohen phone Schiller about some crank calls when he already addressed that issue with text messages? A phone call made afterwards, it stands to reason, must have pertained to something else.

The jury certainly thought so. Dershowitz does not.

It was also argued, by Cohen, and the prosecution, that Cohen didn't need to be believed, because everything he testified about was corroborated by documents and records.

"Yeah, except for the two main points that would prove guilt!" says Dershowitz.

Really? Everything else proves Cohen wasn't lying, but lack of corroboration on these two points proves he is? Doesn't that amount to wishful thinking? Doesn't Cohen's own testimony count as evidence too? Isn't it the jury's decision as to whether or not his testimony is valid?

Ultimately what these objections boil down to is this: Dershowitz thinks Cohen is lying, but only on the two main points he highlights, which is just barely plausible, but unlikely. The jury, on the other hand, thought he was telling the truth. But that's their call to make, not Dershowitz'! If he doesn't like it, too bad. That's not a "miscarriage of justice." That's just how the system works.

And Dershowitz freely acknowledges that there is a danger in second-guessing a trial from the outside. There are things that only the lawyers inside the case might know about. Certain rulings might have been made, various agreements done beforehand, etc. Yet he thinks his opinion of the matter is superior anyway.

Likewise, he freely acknowledges that there were two lawyers on the jury. Wouldn't they have detected any improprieties in the procedure and raised questions?

The part Dershowitz always leaves out is that there was a Trump sycophant on the jury. And even he had to acquiesce to the evidence and find Trump guilty on all 34 counts of fraud. Dershowitz must find that fact uncomfortable, because he never discusses it.

There are other absurd points Dershowitz tries. For example, he often argues that the proceedings were backwards; that the prosecution should have presented closing arguments first, thus giving the defense a chance to rejoinder. According to him, it's not fair for the defense to be asked to make closing arguments first, and then not be able to rejoinder what the prosecution argues.

This is patently absurd. Yes, the defense usually goes second, but not always. Various procedural situations might result in the prosecution arguing afterward. But regardless of which side goes first, the opposition may call to redirect and answer back any of the points raised in the closing statement. In other words, the defense had a chance to argue back the prosecution's closing. Yet according to the court transcript, they failed to do so.

Maybe Dershowitz wouldn't have allowed an opportunity like that to go by. But that doesn't make things "backwards," as he so strangely claims.

It was argued during trial that if the Stormy Daniels case had come out before the 2016 election, Trump might not have been elected president. The prosecution therefore argued that Trump's actions constituted election interference. Dershowitz thinks this is crazy. The Access Hollywood "grab her by the pussy" tape had already been released, and if that didn't change the outcome, he says, nothing would.

I strongly disagree. The main reason Trump's scandal didn't result in a loss isn't because the Access Hollywood tape didn't have enough of an effect. It was because James Comey re-opened the investigation into Hillary's emails only a few days before election day! (Why isn't that election interference?) Up until that point, polls showed Hillary had a fair lead. And what was the result of this renewed investigation? Exactly nothing! But we didn't learn about that until after the election was over.

So play this scenario out: James Comey re-opens the Clinton investigation. But then, the Stormy Daniels story leaks, and Trump is back underwater again. Clinton eeks out a victory, and Trumpism is dead.

That scenario could very easily have played out! But Dershowitz somehow doesn't think so.

"New York overwhelmingly went against Trump," he points out. "The story wouldn't have resulted in a different outcome in New York."

Oh, like the story wouldn't have affected all 50 states?! Come on!

Again, Dershowitz believes fervently that he would have done a better job in Trump's defense. I acknowledge that he's probably right. But that by itself wouldn't have guaranteed a different outcome. In the end, the case against Trump was solid. Not perfect, and not completely airtight (how many cases ever are?) but solid. And people have been convicted of far more on far less.

Our justice system isn't perfect. And neither is Dershowitz, a long-champion of this imperfect system. He believes strongly in an imbalanced system that lets 10 guilty people go free rather than have 1 innocent person be convicted. How dare he, after years of contributing to the imperfection, now complain about an outcome he doesn't like?

Perhaps defending shady characters for so long has taken its toll on the man. Perhaps putting himself in the mindset where he could defend such people caused him to take on some of their qualities through osmosis. This possibility reminds me of that classic quote from Kurt Vonnegut's amazing novel, Mother Night, which goes something like this:

"Be careful what you pretend to be. Because in the end, you are what you pretend to be."

In the case of Dershowitz, he was a devil's advocate for so long, he became a devil himself.

He truly is an American tragedy.

Eric

**

Trump Is Going Senile - Time To PUSH That Advantage!

If you've heard Trump's latest campaign speeches, they're something truly remarkable. Not for their content, but for their lack thereof.

Take this snippet from last Thursday's speech in New York, when he was asked a question about what he would do to lower the high cost of childcare.

"Well, I would do that. And we’re sitting down – you know, I was somebody – we had – Sen. Marco Rubio and my daughter Ivanka were so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that – because, look, child care is child care. It’s – couldn’t – you know, it’s something – you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country. Because I have to say with child care – I want to stay with child care – but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just – that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people, but we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first, it’s about Make America Great Again. We have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question."

Fucking what?!

And now we begin to see why Kamala's team wanted the debate microphones continuously on. They know Trump can't hold a coherent train of thought anymore! They know he'll hang himself with his own rope.

Not surprisingly, the woman who asked that question, Reshma Saujani, came away from the answer believing Trump was an incompetent dolt who is unfit to be president.

There are many other recent examples of Trump going haywire in the head, from his sit-down with black journalists in which he said, "Kamala suddenly turned black," or his gaffe (one of many) in Mosinee, Wisconsin, where he mispronounced Elon Musk's first name as "Leon."

Leon Musk?

Here's the thing: The old situation was that there were two old men running against each other, both of which were too old and senile to be president. Admittedly, Biden is more in decline than Trump, but it's impossible to deny that Trump is also in decline. Now that there's only one old, incompetent, senile old man, all the age questions fall on him like a ton of bricks.

In addition to all the affairs, all the guilty verdicts, all the convictions, all the scandals, all the stupid stuff coming out of his mouth for eight solid years, we now have this additional knock against Trump:

He is obviously too goddamned old. And not getting any younger, or sharper.

Now I get it; people age differently. Trump doesn't have a feeble-sounding voice like Biden, he doesn't shuffle when he walks like Biden, and he doesn't have the ashen-grey visage Biden does. Yet it's become impossible to deny that Trump is losing his marbles. Every time Trump takes the stage, his handlers must be terrified of what incoherent crap he might say next. He frequently goes off teleprompter (probably because he can't even see the teleprompter!). They are restricting the questions he takes from reporters and supporters alike, all the while attacking Kamala for (and this is rich!) avoiding the press.

You want Kamala to do more press briefings? You first, Donny.

Their side had no reservations about attacking Joe Biden for his age. We must now press that same advantage. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And it's absolutely relevant to ask whether a candidate is mentally fit to hold office.

It's becoming more and more obvious that Trump is not. We need to call this out, and make it a continual talking-point from now until November 6th.

And probably long after that.

Eric

**

Opposing Trump Is For Everyone. EVERYONE.

If we were at all sane in this country, Trump would be losing by at least 40 points. But this race is inexplicably close. So far, Kamala is winning. But that means only that sanity has a 53% margin, and that's truly horrifying. At long last, we need to realize that opposition to Trump is THE salvation of the Republican brand, to say nothing of the salvation of us all.

In the movie, "Serial," a quote is misattributed to Star Trek, although it sounds very much like something Mr. Spock might say. The quote goes, "In an insane world, the sane person must be regarded as insane."

Or, as I rephrase it for our modern times, "In the Right-Wing Media Cult, the sane person must be regarded as insane."

So, at long last, it's time for Republicans to unify. Not behind Donald Trump, but in opposition of him. Liz Cheney is showing the way. So is Mike Pence, who should rightly have been made president at the first impeachment hearing. John Bolton, Mark Esper, Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, THE ENTIRE BUSH FAMILY, former Speaker of the House John Boehner, Will Hurd, former Speaker Paul Ryan, Trump's former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, and Nikki Haley, who spoke so strongly against Trump before she lost her spine along with her luggage at the airport.

And this just scratches the surface of the many, many Republicans who have jumped ship.

So, at long last, all Americans can rally around the "Never Trump" movement. Not everyone has to be a fan of Kamala Harris. She is merely, at barest minimum, the only salvation for Democracy we have right now.

It is non-partisan to say, "I don't like any of her stances on the issues, but I'll vote for her, because I can't stand the other guy."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a convicted felon."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man convicted of sexual assault."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a proven tax cheat."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man who promised a ridiculous wall he didn't deliver."

It is non-partisan to say, "I will not vote for a man so old he can't maintain a cohesive train of thought anymore. Who mumbles. Who digresses. Who can't answer a simple question without going off on some irrelevant tangent."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man who scuttled a bi-partisan border security bill just to campaign on border security (as if we weren't paying attention on that one)."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man who shoves U.S. soldiers aside like so much riff raff when they remind him of certain cemetery rules which ought to be obeyed - regardless of family wishes when that family doesn't have the authority to grant such permission in the first place."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man so brazenly delusional that he denies the above event even took place."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a sore loser."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for someone who delights over an insurrection done in his name."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a Proud Boys supporter."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man who complains Democrats are cheating while actively, and not very secretively, fomenting cheating himself."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man who 'both-sidesed' Charlottesville Nazis."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a man who bellowed for Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and then afterwards calls Russian interference 'a hoax.'"

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for someone who makes fun of a journalist's disability."

It is non-partisan to say, "I won't vote for a pussy-grabber."

It is non-partisan to say "No!" to Trump.

(Sorry, I meant, "Hell, no!")

Eric

**