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

**

Don't Underestimate J.D. Vance

Meet the Press, for all its faults, is still one of the best shows to watch if one wishes to be politically informed. J.D. Vance was a guest on that show this past Sunday, and he did the usual dodging of the difficult issues, except abortion, where he gave a stalwart pledge that there would not be a national ban. I'm quite certain he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it, but he said it.

Here's the thing about Vance, though. He comported himself beautifully when asked the tough questions. He was every bit as eloquent as Pete Buttigieg. And while he made plenty of dodges, refusing to accept the premises of nearly all questions posed to him, he was also poised, polished, and confident. He was fast on his feet, and cool under fire.

Yes, Vance is a flip-flopping buffoon. But he's clearly talented. When Trump loses (and I predict he will), he becomes the heir apparent. Not Ron DeSantis, not Vivek Ramaswamy, not Nikki Haley. And when that happens, he'll command exactly the same type of blind devotion Trump does, in spite of his many personality faults. In fact, some might point out, because of his many personality faults.

We would do well not to underestimate him.

Oh, and that pledge that there won't be a national abortion ban? Vance knows he can make that pledge and get away with it, because it's really not his call. He's not leading the ticket. Trump is. And he can pledge until he's blue in the face, but Trump will enact a nationwide ban if he can at all manage it. He's been very blunt about doing so, even though he's been trying to backpedal in a post-Roe world. And Vance will always be able to say, "Look, I wanted to let the states decide, but I was only the Vice President."

Until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, and the Right Wing Media Cult squelched, Vance is a serious threat. He's no Tim Walz, to be sure, but unlike the bludgeonly Trump, he's silver-tongued and can handle the white-hot spotlight better than most other politicians. He is mentally ascendant while Trump is in decline. He is artful while Trump is blunt. He is a bigger threat than Trump in the long run.

Watch out for him. Or else we'll be right back in this same spot four years from now.

Eric

**

A Defense of Gus Walz

Yesterday Jay Weber, that inane, blithering idiot on WISN radio, had the following to say about Tim Walz' son, Gus:

This exactly mirrors comments made by Ann Coulter (a.k.a. "Coultergeist") and podcaster Mike Crispin, who lost his bid for Congress in New Jersey's 4th district in 2022. Both of whom made Keith Olbermann's 'Worst Persons In The World' list in his most recent podcast for exactly this comment. And if it comes from them, you can surely know, without even looking, that this talking point is all over the Right Wing Media Cult as well.

I can't imagine a more hate-filled, stupid, callous, impious, and foolish thing to say. I've watched political speeches of all sorts for many, many years now, and I've seen children of politicians applaud, smile, and glad-hand. That's expected. But I've never seen the outpouring of genuine, heartfelt emotion like the one shown by Gus. This was not some kid crying like a man-baby. This was pride! Pure, unbridled pride! And proof that Tim Walz is the real deal when it comes to integrity.

So what do these idiots even think they can accomplish by attacking that?

I think sci fi writer Patrick Tomlinson had the perfect rejoinder to this idiocy. I don't know if he picked it up from somewhere else on the Internet, or if he came up with it himself. I don't really care either way, it's still brilliant. But the counter-argument goes like this:

And this counterargument works, not just in respect to Rittenhouse, but to any number of other famously-weeping Republican political figures, from John Boehner to Rick Santorum. Governor Chris Christie once wept when he saw the devastation that superstorm Sandy had wrought on New Jersey. Even Moscow-Mitch McConnell once wept on the Senate floor when bidding farewell to New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg.

If Gus Walz is to be crucified for his tears, then logically, these other political figures must suffer as well. Especially Rittenhouse, whose tears were as fake as Amber Heard's.

Enough with the hate! Kamala Harris is not just a Democrat. She's the promise that the Republican party might finally be forced to abandon its extremism and return to sanity. That's why one Republican after another, even former staff members of Trump's, have taken the stage at the DNC to decry Trump and urge their fellow conservatives to oust him in November. And if that doesn't just say it all, nothing will.

The real man-baby is Jay Weber, whose absolute tantrum should rightly end his career! Unfortunately, WISN radio has a long history of not giving a damn how extremist its talking heads are. After all, this is the same network that featured Mark Belling for decades, even after he had a stroke.

But not even Mark Belling would have attacked Gus Walz like this.

Eric

**

Biden's SCOTUS Wishlist

President Biden has proposed a few changes to the Supreme Court. He want to enact term limits, overturn the recent travesty ruling which grants a president blanket immunity, and enforce a code of ethics by which justices may be accountable for their misdeeds. Of course, the odds of such reforms getting passed is nigh on impossible, but as a publicity stunt, it's pretty good. Unfortunately, Biden left off the most important item.

He must propose a new rule where any future SCOTUS nominees must first be unanimously approved by all remaining justices.

I outlined this in my previous blog post as item #3 in my list of reforms to strengthen democracy, and it's no accident that I made it the third-highest priority. It is essential that our SCOTUS justices be as impartial as possible. Yet our current method of confirmation ensures that justices are approved specifically for their biases rather than their lack thereof. This is pure insanity! To preserve our democracy, and ensure the court's integrity, future justices must appeal to both left and right-wing interests. That means any new justice will have to be moderate. Eventually, nine moderates will dominate the court, and that's as it should be. Cases should be judged on their merits and legality, nothing else. Nominees must be judged on their qualifications rather than their partisan leanings. What's more, the Senate, in its confirmation process, is denied any opportunity to stack the court with biased partisans seeking to legislate from the bench. Good!

I get why Biden would suggest his wish list of reforms. It grabs people's attention and gets them talking. That's a positive thing. But leaving off the most important reform of all is ludicrous, even if the odds of passing it are nil.

As usual, I write up a blog post because something needs to be said, and I see nobody else saying it. Well, it needed saying. Let's remove political biases from our Supreme Court once and for all!

Eric

**