In one of the filings, Trump drew attention to the FBI’s deadly force policy, which was in effect during the search of Mar-a-Lago, as it is in every FBI field operation . As soon as the filing was unsealed, right-wing news outlets seized on it and accused Biden of being responsible for gunning for Trump.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…
Coulda-shoulda-woulda, 
It’s always easier to look back and see one’s own mistakes.
Dotard could’ve been a martyr for the MAGA cause.
The judge (Scott McAfee) also was elected to a full term.
Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, and some of his allies suggested Tuesday that this was evidence that Biden’s Justice Department was prepared to fatally shoot him. In fact, Trump was not at his Florida property the day of the search. FBI agents specifically sought to avoid a confrontation with Trump, choosing a day when Trump would not be at the property and giving the Secret Service a heads-up, The Washington Post previously reported.
Trump was not at Mar a Lago during the FBI raid. He was in New York.
Thinking about our democracy as we know it ending, and thinking about this several times a day every day, is definitely not good for my health. That there are so many people cheering it on is simply added horror.
Some analysis has suggested this was another Trump mental and verbal misfire where he misread ‘contraception’ as ‘abortion’ and answered the abortion question. Plausible?
That is certainly a factor, but there may be an even deeper reason. As Josh has pointed out, a POTUS is essentially a “term-limited king”. The American judicial system (especially on the Federal level) just isn’t set up to deal with ‘ex-kings’. People who held that position were never supposed to be in the court system.
Are you missing a word? I was trying to make sense of that sentence, but just couldn’t.
I would say “blaming a Trump conviction on the jury” is in the unspeakably stupid category. How do you get to be a member of Congress without knowing how the court system works?
The Republican nominee for president claimed that the President of the United States conspired with the FBI to assassinate him and people act like this is all normal politics.
Rebalancing The Smug, Immodest, Corrupt Supreme Court
We have two worthwhile reads on the illegitimate Republican Supreme Court this morning. We’re only posting brief extracts, so please go to the links for the full reads.
First, conservative Jill Lawrence’s views on the Court have been evolving:
… Until recently I was skeptical about both term limits and Court expansion. I didn’t sense the political will for either one, and I wasn’t sure either was warranted. But since the immunity hearing, and after many rulings detached from precedent, practicality, or public opinion, I’ve had zero doubt about the need for term limits and I’m even warming up to the prospect of a thirteen-justice Court.
The point of all of this is not to pack the Court and send it screeching left, but to rebalance and stabilize an institution that has grown smug, immodest, inured to ethics abuses, and cavalier to constitutional and national concerns and freedoms—starting with whether a president who tried to stay in power despite losing an election should be tried for that before voters pass judgment on his third presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, Dan Pfeiffer writes about why the Court can be a big election issue for Democrats:
…This is the court that overturned Roe v. Wade and is helping ensure Trump avoids accountability for his crimes. They are corrupt and out of touch with mainstream American values. [snip]
Running against a corrupt court is pushing on an open door. American faith in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low.
[snip]
Making voters — especially the less politically engaged — care about the Supreme Court is difficult. To succeed, we have to explain why it matters to their lives; how the rulings of a MAGA court will restrict their freedoms and be a boon to powerful interests. The fundamental question of this election is whether Democrats can hold together the anti-MAGA majority that won elections in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023. The best way to do that is to make this election about something bigger than a contest between two men. The Supreme Court is a perfect issue to go big.
Both Lawrence and Pfeiffer are coming at the problem from somewhat opposite ends of the political spectrum, but both agree something fairly drastic needs to be done to undo the damage wrought by packing the Court with Republican/ Federalist Society extremists, starting with the modest step of establishing ethics rules.
Expanding the Court or establishing term limits may be aspirational to the point of fantasy, at least during this era of extremist right- wing revanchism. But, in 2024, campaigning on the real world consequences of an out- of- touch extremist Court in the lives of the average American – e.g., losing reproductive freedom, caving to special interests like the gun lobby and industrial polluters – can be the first step toward building a coalition for change and reform. The lesson to be learned from the right’s decades- long project to reshape the Court is that this process is a marathon, not a sprint.
( Cartoon : Joe Heller, hellertoon.com)
You go girl 
. (No relation).
Here’s the deal though. Ignorance is augmenting the anti-democratic nihilism.
Reposted from another thread.
It goes with TDFG’s previous statement to the effect that Biden should be executed. TDFG seems to have the capacity to envision only a very limited set of solutions to his problems.
During the last cicada swarm, a friend of ours dog had gained weight due to all the cicadas she was eating.
For an old man like Rudy if you wear headphones that have an internal battery you can go pee during a Zoom meeting. I try to put my mic on mute.
My question is how is he going tor raise $10,000 when he is in bankrputcy.
Sounds like Rudy has a problem with his stream, even when he’s streaming.
I brought up the issue of export violations and sharing of protected information earlier, but if the Ex-President can violate laws and regulations regarding protected and classified information can you have equal protection under the law. The case is damaged and I doubt at this point if it can be concluded with a conviction, but lacking a verdict it seems that much case law regarding mishandling of sensitive information is called into question.
