Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I was promised a recession.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

This blog will pay for itself.

The willow is too close to the house.

No Justins, No Peace

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Republicans don’t trust women.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

I wonder if trump will be tried as an adult.

The words do not have to be perfect.

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Repub Enablement Open Thread: The NYTimes Has *CONCERNS*

Repub Enablement Open Thread: The NYTimes Has *CONCERNS*

by | 117 Comments

This post is in: , ,

‘What if the proles start harrassing… *our* sort of people? Reputable men with the right addresses, who summer in the same coastal resorts we prefer?’…


Reader Interactions

117Comments

  1. 1.

    Lyrebird

    As appalled as I am that this columnist gets paid to propagandize like this, I am so glad for BJ and for Anne Laurie’s tireless work sifting through the muck.

  2. 2.

    Alison Rose

    There’s also this fucking shit from a former federal prosecutor: Trump’s Prosecution Has Set a Dangerous Precedent

    But at least one thing seems clear: Mr. Bragg may have been the first local prosecutor to do it, but he will probably not be the last. Every local prosecutor in the country will now feel that he or she has free rein to criminally investigate and prosecute presidents after they leave office. Democrats currently cheering the charges against Mr. Trump may feel differently if — or when — a Democrat, perhaps even President Biden, ends up on the receiving end of a similar effort by any of the thousands of prosecutors elected to local office, eager to make a name for themselves by prosecuting a former president of the United States.

    He goes on to say HUNTER BIDEN!!!!! and then offer up a bunch of hypotheticals, followed by “These possibilities are impossible to fully anticipate.” Okay bro, then what’s your point? And then:

    It didn’t have to be this way. The most obvious and sensible approach, at least for Mr. Biden, would have been to instruct his attorney general to engage and coordinate with Mr. Bragg and Fani Willis, the district attorney investigating Mr. Trump in Fulton County, Ga., assuring them that the Biden Justice Department would conduct thorough criminal investigations concerning Mr. Trump’s business dealings and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. (Federal prosecutors routinely ask state and local prosecutors to step aside when the underlying facts implicate federal laws or federal interests, and they almost always agree.) In doing so, Mr. Biden could have not only alleviated the legal uncertainty and controversy that currently surrounds Mr. Trump; he also might have protected himself and his Democratic successors from retribution. But the president does not appear to have taken those steps, leaving both prosecutors with the license — and arguably the imperative, given their responsibilities to their constituents — to pursue Mr. Trump for any questionable conduct in their jurisdictions.

    I mean, IANAL so whatever, but like…explain to me how Biden and the DOJ being part of the scrum here would make it LESS likely that Republicans would be pissed about it????

  3. 3.

    West of the Rockies

    I can’t stand Peter Baker.   He is a smug dweeb.  Always thinks he’s the smartest cat in the box.  Pursed-lip, pontificating putz.

  4. 4.

    Benw

    Why hasn’t President Biden pardoned Trump for all crimes in order to heal the nation? Some people are saying

  6. 6.

    smith

    @Alison Rose:explain to me how Biden and the DOJ being part of the scrum here would make it LESS likely that Republicans would be pissed about it????

    Or, for that matter, how would confining it to federal courts in any way stop local prosecutors from going after Dem ex-presidents? They are going to try it in any case. So far the appeals-level judiciary has mostly held as a wall against the worst of Republican fuckery (see all the rulings against the Big Lie, as well as upholding the requirement for many of TFG’s lackeys to testify). We can only hope and trust  that bogus indictments brought by two-bit RW prosecutors meet the same fate.

  7. 7.

    cain

    @Alison Rose: ​
     
    The GOP will do whatever is expedient for them and people like Peter Baker will give them cover.
    What did Peter the great say about McConnell switcheroo on supreme court justices, eh ? Stupid fuck

  8. 8.

    cain

    @Benw: ​
     
    Wrong dude .. it’s the governor of New York. There will be calls for her to pardon him. You can bet on it.

  9. 9.

    sdhays

    I read a similar story in Vox earlier blithely stating that this was a “politicized prosecution”, based on a bunch of criteria he pulled out of his ass. When you dig into his arguments, he pretty much always has to admit we don’t even know what the charges are or how strong the evidence is, but he’s assuming things about them because. Just because.

    Fuckers.

  10. 10.

    Origuy

    In an earlier thread, someone suggested that while the statute of limitations for the Stormy Daniels campaign finance charges may have run out, it could be argued that it was put on hold during Trump’s presidency, since the policy was not to prosecute a sitting president. While I’d like to see as much piled on DJT as possible, I sort of hope that a judge throws that argument out along with the whole idea of giving a sitting president a pass.

  11. 11.

    StringOnAStick

    We’re either a nation of laws for everyone, or we’re just sliding into banana republic status.  Their argument falls apart because what he’s been indicted for occurred before he was President.   They are implying that a person can commit all the crimes they want but as long as they become President, they have a complete pass on culpability.

  12. 12.

    Tazj

    The paper of record can’t seem to publish opinions against Trump’s indictment fast enough. There’s another one out today, “Trump’s prosecution sets a dangerous precedent.” Does it? Were any of these people against John Edwards getting prosecuted? I know he wasn’t the president but a candidate, but once you become president hands off?

    Many politicians have been prosecuted and sent to jail. If it were the Clintons the NYT would be dancing in the streets. Just because Trump’s followers are dangerous loons doesn’t mean he should get a pass.

  14. 14.

    StringOnAStick

    One thing I have yet to see any R elected official state plainly is “he’s innocent”, because they know he’s not and that bold of a statement will get run on a loop.  They’re going to try every technicality argument they can come up with, like this is high school debate club.

  16. 16.

    UncleEbeneezer

    Filing false documents is actually one of the more common, financial crimes charged by Manhattan DA.  Trump isn’t being singled out.  He’s being included with everyone else who does it.

  17. 17.

    Another Scott

    @Origuy:

    Amanda Lineberry and Chuck Rosenberg’s article at LawfareBlog.com seems to be relevant (from April 2019):

    […]

    In a future administration under a different president and a different attorney general, federal prosecutors might theoretically have the chance to determine whether a now-former President Trump should be prosecuted for either of these crimes. We are not advocating here for subsequent prosecution of these crimes in a new administration. Rather, we are simply exploring one of the legal barriers to prosecution: the statute of limitations, or the time limit given to prosecutors to charge a crime, based on the date the crime was completed.

    The Justice Department concluded in a 2000 memo that the Constitution prohibits charging a sitting president. But all sitting presidents become former presidents, and the Constitution does not bar charging a former president. The statute of limitations, on the other hand, might. The 2000 memo assumed either Congress or the courts could ensure the statute of limitations would not expire, concluding “the public interest in indictment alone would be … weaker still given Congress’ power to extend the statute of limitations or a court’s possible authority to recognize an equitable tolling”—that is, to suspend the statute of limitations in the interests of justice. But the memo says nothing about the strength of either option. And neither option seems certain to us.

    The statute of limitations ensures that the possibility of criminal prosecution does not hang over a defendant’s head forever and encourages prosecutors to bring charges while evidence is fresh. In United States v. Marion, the Supreme Court noted that statutes of limitations work in tandem with the Constitution’s Speedy Trial Clause to prevent pretrial delay. But while the purpose of the Speedy Trial Clause is to protect criminal defendants, statutes of limitations reflect a balance between protecting defendants from delay and allowing prosecutors adequate time to investigate and charge.

    The typical statute of limitations for federal criminal offenses is five years, meaning that charges must ordinarily be brought within five years of the last act that constitutes the particular crime. Some offenses, based on their severity and the difficulty of prosecuting them, have longer statutes of limitations, as established by Congress. For example, the statute of limitations is eight years for certain terrorism offenses and 10 years for some bank fraud crimes. But the five-year limitation period applies to the statutes criminalizing obstruction of justice.

    If prosecutors wanted to bring charges against the president after he left office, they would need to determine whether the statute of limitations for the applicable crime permitted that. But even if the statute of limitations has run, a court could preserve charges that have otherwise expired through equitable tolling—a judicial suspension of the statute of limitations, devised by courts to yield fair and just results.

    In Young v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that all statutes of limitations periods are “customarily subject to equitable tolling.” But equitable tolling is applied only in very limited circumstances, and it is more typically applied in civil cases. Most cases in which criminal statutes of limitations are tolled involve situations in which the commission of the crime is concealed or the defendant has fled or is unavailable—but tolling in these circumstances is authorized by statutes. Such cases, therefore, do not require equitable tolling, which is a resort to the plenary power of the courts to ensure that justice is done. At least one federal court of appeals—the Third Circuit in United States v. Midgley—has explicitly said that equitable tolling can apply in criminal cases. But even in that case, the court decided not to toll the statute of limitations for prosecutors who sought to charge the defendant with crimes they had originally dropped in a plea bargain after the defendant violated that agreement.

    […]

    We’ll see!

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  19. 19.

    West of the Rockies

    A certain percentage of people like to be contrarian.  They think they know better than everyone else, have more insight, and aren’t the sad dupes that all the rest of us are.

    lt’s also virtue-signaling.  These people are the midlife, professional version of the 23-year-old who votes Green Party and only listens to indie and worships everything by Wes Anderson and Sophia Coppola.

  20. 20.

    Hildebrand

    There is no universe where a zealous right-wing judge wouldn’t have already charged Obama if they had had a case (or even the whiff of one).  They were desperate to find something when he was President – and had nothing.

    Likewise, didn’t the Republicans work overtime throughout Clinton’s presidency to do exactly this, as well?  Didn’t the whole Lewinski thing blow up in the course of one of these fishing expeditions?

  21. 21.

    Matt

    @Alison Rose:

    he also might have protected himself and his Democratic successors from retribution

    Shorter Nahgonnabearound Oncethefascistswin: “I will 100% support future Republican crimes, up to and including my own deportation for having an un-Merikan name”

  23. 23.

    Roger Moore

    @Benw:

    Why hasn’t President Biden pardoned Trump for all crimes in order to heal the nation?

    Of course he can’t pardon state offenses, which is one reason it’s important the charges in New York are not being pursued federally.

  24. 24.

    rikyrah

    UH HUH

    UH HUH

     

    Ricky Davila (@TheRickyDavila) tweeted at 10:38 AM on Sat, Apr 01, 2023:
    Let us remember that William Barr was hired to be the MAGA regime’s criminal underboss and to cover up as many crimes as possible for a crook, so when he accuses DA Alvin Bragg of abusing power, he’s actually upset to see his cover up efforts explode in his disgraceful face.
    (https://twitter.com/TheRickyDavila/status/1642189753780174853?t=QLkPeDco2dHd2HPWbEedug&s=03)

  25. 25.

    kindness

    Another reminder of why I chose not to give the GD NY Times another dime of my money (or click on my devices).  In my youth (the 70’s), I read the Times.  Thought highly of it.  Now, not so much.  Have I changed or has the Times?  Probably both.

  26. 26.

    Tony Jay

    “Allow me to present these thinly sourced hypotheticals implying that questions of national import are absolutely grounded in the matter of how;

    1) ‘people’

    2) ‘might’

    3) ‘feel’

    Rather than covering the start of Trump Indictment Season by referring to the recorded factual events of the last seven or eight years, because that would upset the ‘both sides’ narrative by confirming beyond all reasonable doubt that;

    1) crimes

    2) were

    3) committed

    And that ain’t the job of a FTFNYT courtier.

  27. 27.

    different-church-lady

    I would like to think that if Obama got stopped for a DWI they wouldn’t just go, “Oh, you’re a former president, have a nice night.”

  29. 29.

    rikyrah

    The Saturday/Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart (@weekendcapehart) tweeted at 6:56 AM on Sat, Apr 01, 2023:
    “Presidents were supposed to be hired to do a job. This was not supposed to be a pantheon of gods who can do anything they feel like it, and then for the rest of their lives never suffer the consequences.” @BeschlossDC tells @CapehartJ about the role of the Presidency #MSNBC https://t.co/Lcn9FZxpmI
    (https://twitter.com/weekendcapehart/status/1642133856399642624?t=RpOO3Q4XTfSdXtLTi16FOQ&s=03)

  31. 31.

    different-church-lady

    @Alison Rose: ​
     

    Every local prosecutor in the country will now feel that he or she has free rein to criminally investigate and prosecute presidents after they leave office.

    That’s a bad thing?

  32. 32.

    West of the Rockies

    I don’t read the NYT.  Are there other columnists who are celebrating Trump’s indictment?  I know the WP presents “both sides” in its opinions section though it skews a bit more progressive perspective than conservative.

  33. 33.

    different-church-lady

    If there was any “immunity”, it was never legal immunity. It was always immunity of will.

  35. 35.

    different-church-lady

    @West of the Rockies: In a sane world it would be a weird thing for a genuine journalist to celebrate. Because it means our electorate is failing, and thus our democracy is failing. It would be like celebrating the fact that air bag operated properly when you hit the tanker truck.

  36. 36.

    different-church-lady

    I might also note to Mr. Baker that scandal is not necessarily illegal.

  37. 37.

    Elizabelle

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Peter Baker is not a columnist. He is their chief White House correspondent Republican whisperer.

    He is pretty much an operative with press credentials.

  38. 38.

    scav

    It is a well-known fact that according to the NYT all — each and every — American Presidents since the very first have crimed Big-Time! and left office unimpeded, unimpeached and free to crime still more until this unprecedented politically motivated over-reach by a local DA threw all that magnificence into question.  Got it.

    ETA They could write up a whole series of the offenses!  Do an in-depth presidents rap-sheet every week in a special fold-out section as a patriotic both-sides service. Assemble the team!!

  39. 39.

    dmsilev

    Trump was “singled out” by several past Manhattan DAs who chose to overlook his decades of criming in their jurisdiction.

  41. 41.

    rikyrah

    Found this article about DA Bragg in the 1995 Harvard Crimson:

     

    The Anointed One
    Students See Alvin Bragg as Conciliator

    By Anna D. Wilde
    June 8, 1995

    On the evening of Sunday, February 9, 1992, a group of about 40 Black and Jewish students gathered for a tense discussion in a gray-carpeted, well-lit room in the Freshman Union.

    Just a few days before, the Harvard Black Students Association had hosted a speech by City University of New York professor Leonard Jeffries, provoking a 400-student protest spearheaded by Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel.

    The Union event was the only moment of organized talk in a year marked by silence and insult. The person who made it happen was at the time just a first-year student: Freshman Black Table President Alvin L. Bragg ’95.

    Some exchanges were sharp. Jews argued that Jeffries was anti-Semitic and inaccurate in some of his views. A Black student retorted, “If you feel that what Jeffries says is bullshit, then prove to me what he says is bullshit.”

    But as moderator, Bragg kept the session from escalating into a verbal brawl, diffusing tension by reminding participants that they were in an open forum, not an official meeting.

    “It just amazed me the poise he had, the ability to maintain a lid on a room that could have blown up,” says Michael H. Pine ’95, a Hillel official and friend of Bragg’s who was at the discussion.

    The 1992 meeting was typical of Bragg, whom many students credit with a rare ability to reconcile diverse people and clashing views.

    In his own term as president of the Black Students Association last year, Bragg was known as a mediator and, according to his predecessor, a “conciliator.” It is not the usual role for the president of the BSA, which through the years has found that only controversial activism forced significant change from the Harvard administration.

    Bragg is positioned to someday assume such a role on the larger stage of local or national politics. He has powerful mentors, including the Rev. Calvin O. Butts, pastor of Harlem’s influential Abyssinian Baptist Church.

    Bragg reconciles both strong roots in Harlem and an elite educational background at Harvard and New York’s private Trinity School. His mother, Sadie C. Bragg, says he was raised to “know who he was and live in both worlds.”

    The Harvard senior himself says he will likely not end up running for office. But whatever he does eventually, today there is a definite sense of the anointed about him.

    Says Dean of Students Archie C. Epps, who has been watching Harvard political talent since the late 1960s, “I would push him toward elective politics because he’s the perfect example of a crossover politician who can draw votes from both white and Black voters.”

    …………………………..

     

    “We wanted Alvin to be raised so he would understand growing up as a Black kid and also living in a predominantly white world,” his father says. “He would be educated, but would have to relate to people who weren’t that well-educated…so he could understand both worlds.”

    Every day after school, Alvin Sr. Brought his son to his office at the New York Urban League, giving him a glimpse of how its clients lived. Later, Alvin Sr. took his son to the homeless shelters where he served as a city administrator.

     

    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1995/6/8/the-anointed-one-pon-the-evening/

  42. 42.

    dmsilev

    @scav: Dwight Eisenhower’s post-Presidential murder and bank robbery spree is, sadly, not commonly taught in history classes.

  45. 45.

    Ohio Mom

    The NYT has had at least two of these Op-Eds decrying Trump being brought to justice.

    I don’t read them, I skip right to the Readers’ Picks comment thread and enjoy watching everyday people shred the fancy writer’s arguments.

    I’ll add that I don’t read all of them, there are too many — the last one I looked at had 1.8K comments before it was closed. That to me is an indication of how disgusted the readership is with this clickbait. If you are the 1,799th commentator, you must know that probably no one besides the moderator is going to see your comment. But rage demands expression.

  46. 46.

    scav

    @dmsilev: Yeah, and I wasn’t paying attention the week in school where we learned which of them was Jack the Ripper, but I’m sure it wasn’t DDE unless the presidential Tardis arrived before ‘63.

  47. 47.

    smith

    I’ve often thought that one of the worst faults of the American electorate is a basic misunderstanding of presidential powers. Many sincerely believe that everything that happens in DC starts and ends with the president — that he can make any laws he wants, appropriate any money he wants, and bend the courts to his will, with no interaction with other branches of government required. This, I think, is why so many red state voters are perfectly satisfied with representatives like M.T. “Bride of Chuckie” Greene turning Congress into  giant reality show. They are unaware that Congresspeople have any other work to do.

    This hand-wringing over TFG’s indictment seems to be another facet of this general belief. The president is some kind of elected king, and kings never are called to account for their crimes, at least not through normal judicial channels.

    It is distressing, though, to see how many nominally well-informed and well-educated people apparently hold this belief.

  48. 48.

    rikyrah

    BWA HA HA HA HA HA AHAH H A

     

    David Avallone (@DAvallone) tweeted at 8:48 PM on Fri, Mar 31, 2023:
    MAGA is having an absolute meltdown. They are consumed with impotent rage… the kind the little blue pills can’t fix.

    Don’t let anyone tell you not to revel in it. They have earned every moment of misery and helplessness that’s coming, and there’s a lot more coming. https://t.co/v36pBhFJgO
    (https://twitter.com/DAvallone/status/1641980702475575299?t=HdaTtgtbzLchyhvvm_rKmA&s=03)

  49. 49.

    different-church-lady

    @Ohio Mom: ​
      A few years back, when the Times decided to shitcan the position of “public editor”, they pretty much announced they no longer cared what the readership had to say.

  50. 50.

    Elizabelle

    @Ohio Mom:  Yep.  The FTF NYT reader comments, sorted for Most Liked, are sometimes the only thing that make reading that house of mirrors paper worth reading.

    I suspect that the top editors know that. They are a release valve, by design, and can help retain subscribers.

  51. 51.

    StringOnAStick

    I emailed my dad the RW reactionary to tell him we have covid.  He responded by asking if we had been vaccinated (he doesn’t pay attention to what goes on in anyone else’s life), and if not then to please get vaccinated immediately, and to “not listen to those anti-vax idiots, they’re all morons who voted for Trump!”

    You could have knocked me over with a feather when I read that.  something has gotten through his wall of FOX news 24/7, and I wonder what it was; there’s so many candidates.

  52. 52.

    ColoradoGuy

    I remember all too well the GOP screeching and howling about “he’s not a King” when Obama was President. How quickly they forget.

  53. 53.

    tomtofa

    @Ohio Mom: That to me is an indication of how disgusted the readership is with this clickbait.

    To me it’s an indication of how successful the clickbait is in catching fish.

  54. 54.

    brantl

    The former presidents were largely insulated by either not committing crimes (the vast majority of them), or committing crimes that were popular at the time ( Jackson, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. ), or were never found out (all nameless, naturally). Trump’s were obvious, amateurish, and easily proven.  Trump could have easily been “insulated from prosecution” by not committing the f’ing crimes, the douchebag.

  55. 55.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @West of the Rockies: I liked Michelle Goldberg’s piece

    As I write this, we don’t know exactly what those charges are or the degree to which, as many have speculated, they rely on an untested legal theory. But it is a mistake to treat this indictment — which, according to The New York Times, includes more than two dozen counts — as tangential to Trump’s other misdeeds. Contrary to what Jones said, the conduct at issue in this case is directly tied to the 2016 election and the question of whether Trump cheated to win it.
    Most of the legal trouble that Trump has faced since entering politics has stemmed from his willingness to skirt the law and, at times, betray the country in his drive to get and keep power. Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation didn’t prove that he engaged in a criminal conspiracy, but it did show that his campaign both “welcomed” and received Russian help in his first bid for president. Trump’s first impeachment, in 2019, was about his attempt to extort President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine into manufacturing dirt on Joe Biden, the rival he most feared.
    Trump is under criminal investigation in Georgia and Washington, D.C., for his attempts to subvert the outcome in the 2020 race. Each time he failed to face consequences for breaching rules meant to safeguard America’s electoral system, he escalated his behavior, to the point of attempting a coup. Escaping conviction in his second impeachment, for trying to overthrow the democratic system he was sworn to protect, he now treats Jan. 6 as something heroic, honoring rioters at his most recent campaign rally.
    Compared with these offenses, the hush money payments to Trump’s paramours might seem like a minor issue, but it’s part of a pattern of anti-democratic behavior.

    the Jones in question is, inevitably, Van “Donald Trump is my President” Jones

  56. 56.

    Another Scott

    Meanwhile, in DC… WTOP.com:

    Currently, well over 100 dispensaries will sell a sticker or T-shirt for $100 and then “gift” the customer an amount of cannabis that’s equivalent in value. It was a legal gray area, but now many of those companies are going to be able to get medical marijuana dispensary licenses.

    The Medical Cannabis Amendment Act of 2021 went into effect on March 22. It eliminates caps on the number of medical dispensaries, allowing many of the “gifting” brick-and-mortar and delivery services to apply for medical marijuana licenses.

    It also expands the types of licenses that retailers could apply for, including internet retailer and a courier license of deliveries of marijuana as well as “safe-use facility endorsement” to allow tasting events, cannabis-based cooking classes and summer garden events that allow sales in private outdoor spaces.

    Retailers have 90 days from the effective date to submit an application for a license.

    (Emphasis added.)

    I wonder if there are other fill – in – the – blank areas where this technique can be applied…

    “But I’m not selling information on how to perform your own abortion! I’m selling cookies and sending a gift of a URL! …”

    Every avenue should be investigated to fight the monsters who are attempting to break our government and our society.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  59. 59.

    MattF

    Even Maggie Haberman knows (gift link) about how TFG wanted to weaponize the justice department. Why Baker doesn’t know about this is, I guess, a deep mystery.

  61. 61.

    UncleEbeneezer

    @rikyrah: Wow.  Great find.  One bitter, attention-seeking former colleague aside, Bragg seems to be very well-respected by his peers and within his profession.

  62. 62.

    jeffreyw

    Trump did nothing wrong. And if he did do something wrong it wasn’t illegal. And if it was illegal, it’s not something people are usually prosecuted for. And if it is something that people are usually prosecuted for, a former president still shouldn’t be prosecuted for it.— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) April 1, 2023

    In case this has not been posted yet.

  63. 63.

    Another Scott

    Speaking of scare stories, recalling that the GQP wants to cut social insurance programs in return for raising the debt ceiling, …

    Dean Baker at CEPR – The Social Security Scare Story Industry:

    I’m on the road (literally, driving from southern Utah to western Oregon) but I thought I should quickly weigh in on the scare stories we heard yesterday after the release of the 2023 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports. I’ll make four quick points:

    * The scare stories stem entirely from how we account for Social Security, as opposed to programs like education or the military;

    * We’ve already seen most of the increased burden associated with the retirement of the baby boomers;

    * It’s not true that our only choices are raising taxes or cutting benefits, as has been widely asserted;

    * We have seen great news on Medicare since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which has been largely ignored.

    […]

    Worth a click.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  65. 65.

    Bill Arnold

    For those interested, was doing some semantic archaeology, and found a prototype from Frank Wilhoit on conservatism here in 2016 in an Adam L. Silverman comment thread. Sadly, not indexed by Google after the site resurrection. (The commonly cited comment was at Crooked Timber in 2018, and is better honed, IMO.) If Frank sees this, would not mind more details about how this formed over time.
    https://balloon-juice.com/2016/10/08/the-herrenvolk-component/#comment-6044567

    No. Conservatism in every time and place has been about stratifying society into in groups, who are protected by the law but not bound by it, and out groups, who are bound by the law but not protected by it.
    …
    The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

    (Also, earlier in thread)

  67. 67.

    Another Scott

    @Bill Arnold:

    Interesting. Balloon-Juice was ahead of the curve yet again!

    Google crawled the site again in the last few weeks, so more of the old stuff is turning up.  (I just saw a hit (not for that quote) for him in 2009.)

    Unfortunately, Google seems to dump most results after 10-15 years of age.  If you know the timeframe, you can find older stuff on the captures on the Wayback Machine, but I have not figured out how to do much in the way of searches on a specific site there.

    Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  70. 70.

    trnc

    I don’t have time right now, but I’d love to see if Baker wrote anything relevant in 2019-2020 about indicting a president while in office, particularly something along the lines of “Well, it’s problematic now, but they can definitely do it after he leaves office.” You can bet your ass at least one very concerned villager is walking that tightrope, so I think the only real question is how many of them.

  72. 72.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    CBS, 60 Minutes and Lesley Stahl are getting dragged to hell and back again on twitter, and I assume everywhere else, for tomorrow night’s profile of Marge Greene. I’m tempted to tune in just to see how they address it, assuming they will

    Kurt Bardella @kurtbardella
    FFS … being a radical extremists white nationalist bigoted homophobic anti-Semitic piece of human garbage is more than “intense” “opinions” … quit normalizing and thereby legitimizing this 

    Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom 23

    This is a bad idea. While I believe in putting Trump on blast – as a former POTUS and leading GOP candidate – there is no reason to platform one kook with a respectful interview. This is the definition of “normalizing” and it’s a mistake, imo.

  73. 73.

    Elizabelle

    @MattF:  hadn’t seen that one.  Thank you.

    Note that the Maggie Haberman and Michael Scherer Schmidt article is not open for reader comments.  Probably to head off readers calling those two “enabling hacks.”

  74. 74.

    jackmac

    Perhaps the Times needs to do another rural Ohio diner safari to seek the views from flyover country.

  75. 75.

    evodevo

    @smith: Well, the Red State wingers have done it before, though it was their own state officials who were targeted, not national figures…one was Jim Hightower when he was TX Agri Commissioner and another was AL Gov. Don Siegelman,  when W was Prez…”In October 2015, more than 100 former attorneys general and officials, both Democratic and Republican, contended that his prosecution was marred by prosecutorial misconduct; they have petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the case.[6] Siegelman was released from prison on February 8, 2017, and was on supervised probation until it ended in June 2019″  There was speculation that the whole thing was a Rovian dirty trick to make sure Siegelman was not re-elected and in TX in the Nineties to do the same to Hightower …

    https://harpers.org/2007/07/it-started-in-texas-karl-roves-political-prosecutions/

  76. 76.

    bjacques

    And gentlemen in ‘Murica now a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That laughed with us upon INDICTMENT DAY!

     

    EDIT: And every time I see “Stormy Daniels” I hear it in the voice of W.C. Fields. Yeah, I’m old.

  79. 79.

    smith

    @evodevo: Yes, the Siegelman case is the one that keeps coming to mind when the GQP screams about political prosecution. And remember the Saturday Night Massacre in Bush the Lesser’s administration? US attorneys fired because they wouldn’t open bogus investigations of Dem candidates shortly before an election, with the express purpose of tampering with those elections. Somebody should have gone to jail because of that.

  80. 80.

    catclub

    @Hildebrand: ​
      This exactly. Given a crime committed by Obama, show us the ambitious GOP prosecutor who turns down the case because he is an ex-President. But the first phrase assumes a LOT.

  81. 81.

    lowtechcyclist

    @HumboldtBlue: I’m sure they still have a number of very good reporters on less publicized beats. But a news desk that includes both Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman as top national reporters cannot be said to be ‘damn good’ in general.

  82. 82.

    Ruckus

    @Alison Rose:

    Aw, the crux of it.

    They are rethuglicans, they can do no wrong, how do you not understand this level of their bullshit?

    They do not want to live in a country that respects the law, you know the one we ALL live under. They want to live in a country that considers them exceptional and allows them to do whatever the fuck they want.

    Sorry, I know you understand, it may be likely that you, like most of us, don’t understand why they think they are so special and get to do whatever, whenever, however they want. Which is one reason their “leader” is a lawless fuck, because many of them think that’s the way it should be

    I may be a touch pissed off this morning. Maybe….

  83. 83.

    bbleh

    I want mooooorrrre indictments!  Moooorrrrre!!  I want more indictments nnnaaaaooooowwwww!

  84. 84.

    rikyrah

    Ambitious parents are spending hundreds of thousands on consultants to help get their kids into Ivy League schools, report says

    Story by [email protected] (Ryan Hogg) • 9h ago

    Ambitious parents are forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars to consultants to try to get their offspring into Ivy League colleges, Bloomberg reported.
    It said some parents are paying consultants as much as $750,000 to work on their children’s college applications from the seventh grade as acceptance rates plummet.
    Acceptance rates have fallen as mandatory standardized testing is increasingly shunned by many elite universities.
    Data from FairTest, an advocacy group for equitable testing, suggests more than 1,800 US colleges including Harvard, New York University (NYU), and Stanford are now test-optional, favoring other measures of aptitude instead.

    Ambitious parents are spending hundreds of thousands on consultants to help get their kids into Ivy League schools, report says (msn.com)

  85. 85.

    Ruckus

    @StringOnAStick:

    like this is high school debate club

    It’s jr high at best but that still seems a bit far fetched as well, maybe it Spanky and the gang debate club.

  86. 86.

    BlueGuitarist

    OT an article about getting out the vote for the Wisconsin state Supreme Court election may be of interest, eg the description of Supermarket Legends

    who “pass out informational literature and register voters outside local supermarkets and food pantries, at bus stops, on college campuses and on public sidewalks or outside any business that gives them permission…..where voter turnout outside of major elections is typically very low.”

    link to article:

    https://boltsmag.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-milwaukee-organizing/

    Link to phone bank from anywhere for Wisconsin state Supreme Court election:

    https://www.mobilize.us/wisdems/event/54507

  90. 90.

    JPL

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: The comments are understated in my view.  MTG did not believe the pentagon was hit on 9-11.   She thinks most school shootings are staged.   When I saw that yesterday all I could think is that they want to make her trump’s running mate.

  95. 95.

    SFAW

    @Ruckus: ​
     
    It should be, as I’ve been saying [sic] for awhile,

    FTFTFNYT

    The second “TF” is for “Trump-fluffing.”

  96. 96.

    Another Scott

    Doktor Zoom at Wonkette – Texas wingnuts set to ban Lonesome Dove:

    We missed this when it happened a little over a week ago, so a Saturday seems like a great time to catch up. Texas state Rep. Jared Peterson (R) is pushing HB 900, a school censorship bill he disingenuously calls the “READER Act,” aimed at keeping “sexually explicit” books out of school libraries. (The acronym stands for “Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources,” so it’s really more of a Don’t be a Reader act.)

    The bill would require book vendors to label all books that contain any sexual content as either “sexually relevant,” meaning it’s allowable under required school curriculum, like sex ed or health, or “sexually explicit,” meaning it’s offensive and smutty and cannot be sold to schools. There’s no other category.

    […]

    As DeVore points out, Lonesome Dove is the Great Texas Novel, “the closest thing to a holy text in Texas, except for actual holy texts.” He suggests newly-elected Texas office-holders could be given the option “to swear on a copy of Lonesome Dove instead of the Bible,” although we’d add that plenty of allegedly Christian politicians don’t seem terribly familiar with the contents of the latter book, either. The Bible has a lot of sex stuff, too, but we hear it’s necessary for the plot.

    The story went viral, helped by another Republican’s attempt to insist that Lonesome Dove would surely not face removal because according to her extensive research, there wasn’t anything dirty in it.

    […]

    You’ll be shocked, shocked to learn that she hasn’t read it and doesn’t know how to do a search.

    Dangerous clowns.

    The people need to vote them out.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  97. 97.

    Ruckus

    @Rudi666:

    Why would you commute the sentence?

    You try a criminal like SFB because he abused his power massively, much more than he actually used it. This is about no person being above the law. Including ex presidents. And there is specific rules for  treating the current president as a criminal – it’s congress’s duty to impeach them.

    We can not have a nation of laws if the people in power just fucking ignore them because they can get away with it. This jackoff incited an armed rebellion against a legal election that he lost. First president to do so. He should have to pay so he’s also the last one. Otherwise we are a nation of the privileged rather than the people. I didn’t serve in the military during a war because it was cool (BTFW, it wasn’t) and the president doesn’t get elected so they can fuck over the country or be treated as if it’s OK to break the law when they are no longer the president. Presidents are EX presidents after their term expires or they are voted out and that makes them regular citizens, just like most of the rest of us.

  98. 98.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Another Scott: I didn’t know Lonesome Dove was that popular in Texas. I guess I can find common ground with (some) right-wingers. I remember when I read that psycho Zell Miller had named his dogs Woodrow and Gus, I was actually a little disappointed to see some humanity in him

  99. 99.

    Ruckus

    @SFAW:

    You still took out an important F.

    Here I’ll spell it out for you.

    FUCK THE FUCKING TRUMP FLUFFING NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES.

    So it’s FTFTFNYFT

    Yes I like your addition. It’s proper use of the English language. It does seem a bit long though

    BTW, in case you forgot, I was in the Navy. And yes it was the USN.

  102. 102.

    sab

    @Lyrebird: Now that it is getting more dangerous for American reporters, I think the Times should send Peter Baker back to head their Moscow bureau again.

  103. 103.

    Lyrebird

    @sab: Now that it is getting more dangerous for American reporters, I think the Times should send Peter Baker back to head their Moscow bureau again.

    Snort.  It certainly seems like He’s more set to serve Moscow than the American voting public.

     

    @schrodingers_cat: Ah, ugh… thanks for the correction and for having the fortitude to look.

  108. 108.

    sab

    @Lyrebird: Him serving in Moscow is fine with me. We know what he is already. Keep the younger reporters safe, knowing that what he says is collaborative BS. We won’t get solid reporting out of Moscow after this anyway.

    ETA Or at least not out of the FNYT. Notice my corrected bold  there. Accidentally mispoke myself and said what I believe.

  109. 109.

    RSA

    @West of the Rockies: I know the WP presents “both sides” in its opinions section though it skews a bit more progressive perspective than conservative.

    I also avoid the NYT, but I’m a WP subscriber. The most recent outrage (to me) on the WP opinion page was from one Jason Willick, who wrote,

    “No one is above the law” masquerades as a clean legal principle but in fact demonstrates how difficult it is to agree on such principles. Who? What law? And what constitutes being above or below it? These are all political questions.

    This dumbass apparently believes that if it’s not obvious how to apply a principle to real-life situations, that calls the principle itself into question.  So much for principles like “equal justice,” “due process,” “one person, one vote,” and other sometimes-subtle ideas.

  110. 110.

    Elizabelle

    @RSA:  Jason Willick is Hugh Hewitt or Mark Thiessen with training wheels.

    I read one op ed by him.  It was a howler.  Will not give the Bezos WaPost the clicks for Willick.

  112. 112.

    Peale

    I’m going to come out and say it: the Times is circling the wagons over Stormy Daniels because in their circles, having an NDA with a mistress, or a prostitute, or a staff worker that complained about sexual harassment is common and treated as sacrosanct and they are afraid that people might start looking into their good ol’ boys network again.

  115. 115.

    JAFD

    @Bill Arnold: There was article on Mr. Wilholt in Slate last year

    https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html

    which mentioned that his Seventh Symphony, Symphony No. 7, Op. 40, “Sinfonia quasi una fantasia”, would get its world premier performance by the Bryn Athyn Orchestra this Spring, and a minute with ye Google sez ’twill be on Sunday, May 21, at 3 PM.

    Details on purchasing tickets and getting to hall at  http://www.baorchestra.org   and   http://www.mitchellcenter.info/

    Mr. JAFD was wondering yf other jackals of the Philly environs might be interested in attending and possibly holding a get-together before or after ?  Pass the word !

  117. 117.

    Frank Wilhoit

    @Bill Arnold:  If you only have one drum, you really may only beat it once. I keep looking for other drums, but they all wind up turning into the same old one, as if in a repeating dream.
    @JAFD:  Thank you very much for mentioning this. It is a full program of new music, including works by Steven Kujala and Sam Heifetz as well as my symphony. It promises to be a unique and very rewarding occasion.

Comments are closed.