They should at least be nervous....

"All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous." – Joseph Sobran

Today's defense was: No defense. They didn't address much – if any – of SCROTUS's actions today.

Once again, I was able to listen to only bits and pieces, so this first quick look reflects that.

Defense by Kenneth Starr. Obsequious obfuscation. "Aw, come on fellas! We have had just too many gosh-darned impeachments already! There was one just 20 years ago. We gotta stop this nonsense now!" Huh??  Guess he never met Joseph Sobran.

I was really confused as I listened to him evoke 1800s England in his argument that today's impeachment proceedings are unneeded.

And Oh the irony! Kenneth Starr was the one who wanted Bill Clinton's head on a stake over lying about a blow job in 1998. This unctuous scumbag has some chutzpah to call for the dismissal of charges, particularly abuse of power, when this was the centerpiece of his case against Clinton. We can only imagine the faces of the Senators as they listened to that windbag. WTF?

Hypocrite.

Defense by Jane Raskin. Ms. Raskin suggested that the House managers are using Rudy Giuliani as a shiny distraction. Really, Jane? Taking a page out of the boss's playbook, are you? OK, let's give her that. Let's ignore the whole Rudy thing. Behind that shiny bauble? SCROTUS himself. Case closed.

Defense by Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann. BUT HUNTER BIDEN! I was confused when there was talk about events that occurred in 2015 and 2016. They seemed to laser-focused on doing the dirty work that IMPOTUS wanted Ukraine to do: besmirch the Bidens without evidence. These are ugly people.

If there was concern about an American citizen doing corrupt things overseas, then why were there no investigations before or after the Ukraine dust-up? Why didn't 45 call on official government entities to investigate, instead of his personal lawyer and the goons he had found under a rock?

Defense by Eric Herschmann. BUT OBAMA! Herschmann's tactic was to say what Obama's abuses of power were much much worse, going so far as to dig up the old hot-mic moment with Obama said to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, “This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility.” Again, a whole lot of nothing about a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with 45's corrupt acts with regard to Ukraine.

Defense by Alan Derschowitz. Flawed reasoning and misunderstanding the Constitution. Derschowitz continues to assert that impeachment can only be conducted for statutory crime. He talked a long time for what is simply a non-starter. It's not at all true, and we all agree. But just for kicks, a few little words about that: the Constitution reads, "high crimes and misdemeanors." What's the deal? The Atlantic tackles this thorny phrase.

And here is another article talking about the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," written in August, 2018. Interestingly, the author called out Alan Dershowitz's flawed reasoning even back in 2018, saying:

An aside: In his embarrassing recent “book” entitled The Case Against Impeaching Trump – which is mostly a collection of op-eds and transcripts of television interviews – Alan Dershowitz quotes, out of context, Blackstone’s general definitions of crimes and misdemeanors if this supported the proposition that, to be an impeachable, offense, an official’s act must be a “crime” in the ordinary criminal law sense. This is an elementary and almost ridiculous mistake. Blackstone’s treatment of impeachable “high crimes” and “high misdemeanors” is explicitly to the contrary. Dershowitz’s seemingly un-researched stance – that to fit within the category of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” conduct must be a literal criminal-law “crime” – is simply historically indefensible and intellectually irresponsible.

It's my theory that Dershowitz set out his thoughts early, knowing that SCROTUS would be someday impeached. He neatly set into motion the seeds to get him where he is now: in front of the TV cameras, where he loves to be, defending an absolute evildoer, the type he loves to defend, and putting his name in the history books by litigating in the third impeachment trial in American history.


What they didn't talk about: the mustache in the room. John Bolton.

Blockbuster news came out in the New York Times yesterday. An advance manuscript of John Bolton's book was leaked. What Bolton wrote about 45's scheme is damning.

Though it wasn't spoken about during the trial proceedings, Republicans are issuing double-speak. "The stuff from the book that was released were cherry-picked segments! It's nothing new! Besides, the president* says it's not true! Ignore the man behind the curtain!" 45's defense lawyer Mike Purpura said, "We do not deal in speculation."

Exactly, dudes. Do you not understand how this all works? Let me say it real slow so you can understand. You are exactly right. The book can not be admitted as evidence. A leaked manuscript is simply speculation. We need the author of the book to come and tell us what he wrote in the book. In front of the American people. Under oath. That's the way trials work.

Morons.

The Senate will be voting on witnesses on Thursday or Friday. There is talk about an idea that was floated to do a 1:1 exchange of witnesses: John Bolton for Hunter Biden. I don't understand why, if they want Hunter Biden so badly, why they don't just vote to call him. They need just a simple majority to do whatever they want. But maybe it's a way to save face in agreeing to hear from John Bolton. It's silly, though. Biden is not a material witness in the least, and bringing him into it just corrupts the U.S. Senate into another dirty-dealing puppet for the Villian-in-Chief.

Over the past several weeks, there was a poll quoted often that said that 71% of Americans want new witnesses and evidence. A new poll says that 71% of Republicans want witnesses. Along with 93% of Democrats and 81% of Independents.

Polls are powerful, but Senators listen most of all to their constituents. Thems th' ones that vote. They apparently don't care about abdicating their power to the Executive, but they care very much if they are seated in the Capitol come 2021. If you are in a red or purple state, contact your Senators and tell them that you want to hear from John Bolton and other witnesses. You can use Resistbot, 5 Calls, or call the Senate switchboard directly at 202-224-3121. And if you are in a blue state, call anyway. Tell them what you want regarding this or other issues; thank them for stewarding our ship. Call and be involved. This is government by the people.


Other stuff, impeachment and otherwise:

The conservative analyst and IMPOTUS sympathizer Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in the far-right National Review, admits that the Bolton revelations blow the defense up.

SCROTUS has not kept his thumbs still. The first day of the trial last week, he tweeted 142 times, a new record for most tweets in one day since taking office. Something is hitting close to home.

And his fervent thumbing is getting him into trouble. It's been suggested that this tweet regarding the content of Bolton's supposed testimony waives his executive privilege.  And another tweet was a not-so-thinly-veiled threat against Chairman Adam Schiff.

Here is a good description of what was happening in the Senate chambers during Schiff's Thursday closing. You saw the sketches, now read the words!

If you'd like a fuller description of the day's proceedings, I found this from ABC News.

And this gem I've been meaning to share from Vanity Fair. It describes TЯUMP's unfortunate relationship with the United States Constitution, which has mainly been conducted, it appears, in furtive back-alley encounters.

And finally, comic relief:

She's worth it.

The prescient Alexander Hamilton, 1792:

When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits — despotic in his ordinary demeanour — known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty — when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day — It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’

The House managers did a really good job, including using the above quote, presenting their case for the conviction and removal from office of the 45th president* of the United States. All of the managers were impressive, but Adam Schiff stood out brightly. He is a gifted speaker and made a compelling case.

Even some from the other side of the aisle praised him. Surprisingly, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said to Schiff and to the president* that Schiff did a "good job," and Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL), among others, also praised the managers' 21-hour presentation. But no matter how well-presented, and how compelling the damning evidence, GOPers will still be like:

via GIPHY

In the end, Schiff very effectively challenged the Senate to do the right thing. He talked about moral courage after quoting Robert F. Kennedy who said, "Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle...." Schiff was quite powerful when he asserted that moral courage "comes not from disagreeing with your opponents but from disagreeing with your friends."

His final argument is worth the listen. Here is the full 48-minute final argument from Friday, and below, a snippet from the end of Thursday.

"Give America a fair trial. She's worth it."




Schiff's final comments from Thursday. Powerful stuff. "Right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise we are lost."




One of the points the House managers made very plainly, which has been spoken among us for a long time but hasn't been spoken in the hallowed halls of Congress: "He is a dictator." Chairman Jerry Nadler said, “He does not have to respect the Congress. He does not have to respect the representatives of the people. Only his will goes. He is a dictator. This must not stand.”

Chairman Adam Schiff also evoked those strong dictator-y words when he controversially relayed reporting that 45 had warned Senators against voting against him, allegedly saying he'll "have their head on a pike." How king-like of you, Sir tRump! (GOP Senators were not pleased with him saying this.)

Another great moment was when Schiff laid out the predicted defense arguments, calling out TЯUMP for having "a pretty thin skin." Watch:




It was an apt prediction. Indeed, during their short 2-hour opening argument on Saturday morning, the defense evoked Schiff's paraphrasing, and showed the clip of Schiff summarizing the transcript, which very clearly showed that he was paraphrasing.

The defense presented for just two hours on Saturday. IMPOTUS was pretty upset about the timing of the defense's opening statements, coming on Saturday morning. He tweeted mournfully, "looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V."

Barry Blitt, The New Yorker

We're all just actors in the National Reality Show that he is directing.

I half-listened to the defense during the two hour opening. If I paid full attention I probably would've done some damage to something. But I have a couple observations.

One of the defense's first points during Saturday morning's opening was that the impeachment assertion of abuse of power in withholding aid was based on testimony from people "who didn't speak directly to the President." Great point, fellas. Howsabout letting us hear from people who spoke directly to the President?!

And their presentation was not at all polished. The lawyers kept referring to "page xyz of so-and-so's testimony." Honey, the Senators are barely staying awake for the proceedings. They are not going to go look up your evidence! Show your work! This was how the House managers excelled. Their clear descriptions and multimedia presentations were outstanding.

The "defense" consists of the same tired arguments. The whole impeachment is a corrupt attempt to undo the 2016 election; the procedures were unfair and cloaked in secrecy; there was no quid pro quo; no harm, no foul: Ukraine got their damn dinero; and best of all: the Constitution is unconstitutional when it allows Congressional oversight to the Executive branch.

Edited to add this fact checker from FactCheck.org. It'll come in real handy as 45's lawyers mount their defense lies and obfuscations.

Side bits:

The Senate rules forbid journalists from being in the chamber as they are accustomed, so they are viewing above from the gallery. Cameras and TV cameras, other than CSPAN's official stationary camera trained on the speaker, are not allowed. So, some media outlets have sketch artists to capture the scene. Here are a couple sketches from Art Lien of the New York Times. Follow the link for more. Good stuff.

Art Lien

Art Lien

Other news:
New video came out. You can hear SCROTUS talking to "I don't know the guy" Lev Parnas, talking about firing Ambassador Yavonovich. The conversation occurred about a year before the actual firing and the Ukrainian scheme. It is an excellent illustration of how goombas are able to manipulate SCROTUS and get their objectives met. The scheme to get rid of Yavonovich started with Parnas wanting her gone for his own reasons. He and his fellow goon Igor Frumen wanted to get into the energy biz in the then-corrupt Ukraine. Their business name (and I couldn't make this up if I tried) was "Fraud Guarantee." One of them had interest in a club called "Mafia Rave."

Here's the video from the dinner. Listen to how Lev skillfully pushes SCROTUS's ego buttons, saying that Yavonovich was talking trash about him. It was a lie, but effective in angering 45, who called for her firing immediately. She was fired about a year later as part of the Ukrainian shakedown.

Full video:


The bit between Parnas and Poop-Head, with reporting from ABC News:



See, here's the thing. Evidence like this is going to keep dribbling out. The Senate can allow what we know to exist now, with proper witness testimony under oath and subject to cross-examination, or we can all read about it in the New York Times or John Bolton's new book. More and more evidence is going to come, and these spineless Senators will be deeper and deeper into the black slime that's on the wrong side of history.

Next week: the defense. And though the House managers won't have a rebuttal or final argument, they can fashion questions into a de facto rebuttal during the question portion of the trial. And perhaps, hope against hope, Schiff's dare to the Senate will come to fruition and they'll allow witnesses: "Give America a fair trial. She's worth it."

Finally, here's a little more reading about The Schiff Show. And here's one more. I'm pretty proud of my fellow Californian.


Now, go: contact your Senators and/or the Senate switchboard (202-224-3121) and demand witnesses and evidence. And tomorrow, call again.

The First Days in a New Chapter in the History of Our Republic

They have arrived! The first days of the historic impeachment trial – just the third in our 244-year history – of President* Donald J. Trump!

I really wanted to report day by day but it's not gonna happen. In my next life I'll be a journalist!

This is a quick-n-dirty post because I listened to only part of the first two days of the impeachment trial, and I haven't read or listened to much analysis. I hope I'll be able to dive down deeper soon.

Imagine Mitch McConnell's face in the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil line-up. That's Mitch's wanna-be defense during these proceedings. Problem: he's not supposed to be part of the defense. He's supposed to be part of the jury. That hasn't stopped him from trying to strong-arm his Republican caucus into doing the "president's" bidding.

But already, Mitch's iron grip is starting to rust.

The first day was a long debate hammering out the rules. Over the lunch break, the Republican caucus got together. McConnell's fellow Republican Senators, lead by Sen. Susan Collins, pressured him about rule changes, and Moscow Mitch immediately capitulated on a couple of points.

First, instead of 24 hours over two days, each side has three days to present their 24 hours of arguments. 

Also, McConnell wanted no evidence at all, even disallowing evidence from the House investigation from being entered into the record automatically, wanting instead to have the Senate vote on it. He was pressured from his own people into allowing it. 

I mean, really! Duh!  

The first day's debates continued into the night and drifted into the wee hours of the next morning. They argued about whether to allow witnesses and documents during the trial. Eleven amendments for additional evidence were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, but every one was struck down along party lines. The end result was that after opening arguments, the Senate may vote on whether to allow additional witnesses and documents. And if additional witnesses are allowed, they'll be deposed behind closed doors. The Democrats made the obvious point that a trial necessitates witnesses and evidence. The Constitution doesn't spell out an impeachment discussion. It's a trial. The Constitution is clear: "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Trials need witnesses.

There's a lot of talk about four Senators tipping the scale for allowing witnesses and documents. We can hope they'll do the right thing, but I have my doubts about Sen. Susan Collins of Maine in particular. She's made mouth noises before, only to renege on her best instinct. Think Kavenaugh.

Today, the House Managers presented their opening arguments. 

Chairman Schiff is the schitt!  

He owned that chamber. As I watched, it all seemed like old hat to me. But remember: many of the Senators did not pay attention to the House proceedings. They don't really know the ins and outs like you and I. Schiff was masterful at using multimedia to present the whole scheme: point by point, day by day. He showed that the evidence was overwhelming, even as more evidence is coming in daily. And he was adept as a courtroom attorney. He was calm when he needed to be, angry when he needed to be, and sarcastic, too, when he illustrated the proceedings as a sham.

Schiff did a powerful job of presenting non-evidence. He would describe a conversation that led to an action from the higher ups or play video testimony about a memo. "Would you like me to read that memo to you? I'd like to read it." <pause> "Well I can't read it because I don't have it. The Whitewash House has not allowed us to have it, but it is yours for the asking...."

Tomorrow, the House managers continue their presentation, and it'll be all about the Constitution and the law. I'm salivating! 

And when the prosecution rests, the defense will have 24 hours to present their case. I have a feeling that it is going to be a disaster. For one, it's been a disaster already, but that's because we have been paying attention. Remember, some of the Senators haven't absorbed the House proceedings. 

The defense opened with lies, and IMPOTUS himself could not resist boasting about withholding evidence when he crowed today, “We’re doing very well. I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Obstruct Congress much? Hello, second article of impeachment!

I have a feeling that the defense lawyers will play the same discordant tune as they have played all along, which is the tune that only their patron TЯUMP will dance to. It's my feeling that if the defense lawyers screech and moan, deflect and deceive like the GOP did during the House proceedings, they'll be in big trouble. Their audience is much different this time around. This time, the audience is not their boss, the Reprobate-in-Chief. No, these are United States Senators, making up the world's greatest deliberative body. They aren't naive, and they aren't dumb. And neither are the American people.

That's Little Sister Resister, always the optimist!

I still have hope that Justice Roberts will have a role other than sitting there looking serious. He may be asked to compel witnesses or documents. He may be the adult in the room. Heaven knows the Majority Leader can't fill that role. And he shouldn't. The Constitution doesn't say much about impeachment proceedings, but it does spell out who should preside. And it ain't the Senate Majority Leader. Article I (ii) reads, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” 

As they days unfold, let's pay attention. Let's talk around the water cooler, and let's contact our Senators. Let them know that you want to hear additional witnesses and see additional evidence, as 71% of our fellow Americans do. 

Watch, listen, read, rise, and #RESIST!

Trial by Jury!

Alexander Hamilton: "[Impeachable conduct is] misconduct by public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." Federalist Papers No 65

Thomas Jefferson: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." 

United States GOP Senators:

Clay Jones

The articles of impeachment were solemnly walked from the House to the Senate last week. Upon delivery, and after Chairman Schiff read aloud the articles, Chief Justice John Roberts took an oath promising to "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws." I got goosebumps watching him take the oath. He in turn swore in all the members of the Senate.

BREAKING: US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts takes oath to preside over the US Senate during the impeachment trial against President Trump. pic.twitter.com/LI676olHVC

— NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) January 16, 2020

Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose the managers, de facto trial prosecutors, who will present the case. The rainbow crew is composed of mostly lawyers. They are:

• House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), de facto leader of the first phase of the House impeachment proceedings. He got his law degree from Harvard.
• House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY), in charge of the second half of the impeachment proceedings, oversaw the drafting of the articles. Nadler is a Constitutional expert.
• Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). She's a member of the Judiciary Committee and a lawyer. It's her third impeachment rodeo, having been a staffer during Nixon's proceedings and a member of the Judiciary Committee during Clinton's. She represents many of my friends in the San Jose area.
• Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Judiciary Committee member; he's a lawyer, and considered Speaker Pelosi's possible successor as Speaker.
• Rep. Val Demings (D-FL), member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I was impressed with her during the impeachment hearings. She is a former police chief.
• Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), a freshman representative, is a former Army Captain and concerned with national security.
• Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), member of the Judiciary Committee and a former Texas judge.

Read more about them at Politico.

It's been interesting already.

New evidence has come forth from Lev Parnas, Giuliani's henchman. Parnas provided written notes, photos, texts, videos, and voicemail recordings. He provided more dirt on the ouster scheme of Ambassador Marie Yavonovich, as well as texts sucking Devin Nunes deeper into the mud. His most talked-about piece of evidence: hand-written notes on Vienna Ritz-Carlton stationary.

And Parnas has said that for every time SCROTUS claims not to know him, he will release another photograph of the two of them together. He's kept his promise.

Parnas had a blockbuster interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and proclaimed, "He knew what was happening....He knows who I am." See a portion of the interview here:




Parnas also talked to Anderson Cooper on CNN:
Part 1.


Part 2.


Parnas needs to testify!

New evidence also came from the nonpartisan federal watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, who found that IMPOTUS broke the law when he withheld security funds from Ukraine.

We learned that TЯUMP's defense team is headed by White House counsel Pat Cipallone. The team also includes 45's current personal attorney (previous personal lawyers are in jail or under criminal investigation) Jay Sekulow, as well as (surprise) TV stars Ken Starr, former independent counsel during the Clinton years, and celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

SHOWTIME!

IMPOTUS's team filed a brief which laid out their defense. The defense is, basically: <shrug> Hey, what he did wasn't a crime, so no harm no foul.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. It's clear from the founders that statutory crime was not the standard of proof necessary. Hamilton's expanded quote from above:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. – Federalist Papers, No 65

The abuse or violation of some public trust.

Done. This, and so anymore offenses.

Constitutional scholars from here to forever reject that defense. IMPOTUS's own lawyer Alan Dershowitz disputed it in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment:




Besides, it was a crime. The GAO stated so.

The trial begins in earnest Tuesday January 21, though the first day will be spent hammering out the rules, with presentations beginning on Wednesday. It is expected that the rules will be modeled after the 1998 impeachment trial and will allow for 24 hours for each side to present their cases – with Senators required to sit quietly "on pain of imprisonment" – before Senator questions will be allowed.

It's still up in the air whether additional witnesses will be permitted. There are four Republican Senators who have expressed interest in hearing from additional witnesses: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. The issue of witnesses is likely to be decided after the first few days of proceedings. Four Republicans are all that is needed to approve a simple majority vote on the issue.

Because I love him so, and because under the humor is an astute analysis, Stephen Colbert can explain more about the whole dealio:




And so we begin, for the third time in the history of the United States, a trial to decide whether or not to remove a sitting president from office.

Buckle up.

....and #resist!

Our post-truth world

"By a lie, a man... annihilates his dignity as a man." – Immanuel Kant


The lies, they just keep coming. The Washington Post's running tab tells us that SCROTUS has spouted fabrications, lies, and false or misleading statements 15,413 times as of December 16, 2019. At his current rate of over 30 lies per day, it's likely he's surpassed 16,000 by now.

This week's gaslighting of matters big and small:

The Killing of Iraqi general Qasem Soleimani.
He has given various reasons why he carried out the assassination of Soleimani. None of them hold water.

A briefing to Congress left at least a couple GOP Senators upset:




His own administration members have not been able to back him up.




And finally, after all the fabrications, he said it just doesn't matter.

Tom Toles

Obamacare.
This week, unbelievably, he took credit for Obamacare and said that the Democrats want to repeal it. This is the exact opposite of the truth. I just want to scream and tear my hair out.

Curing Cancer.
Trump took credit in a tweet for reducing the rate of cancer deaths. The American Cancer Society said, hold the phone. Not so fast.

And finally, the weather.
He lies about the weather. No, not about the Hurricane Dorian hitting Alabama. This week, when the Whitewash House account tweeted this, it was 54º, on an evening when it had been a clear, sunny 70º Washington D.C. day.

First snow of the year! ❄️ pic.twitter.com/kgSLQX6QxK

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 13, 2020

What do we do with #AlternativeFacts? Fight back. Call out lies and fake news. Fight to regain our Nation's dignity.

#Resist.

"All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal."

"All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal." – John Steinbeck


I'm deeply sad about an escalation of conflict with Iran, making the possibility of war very real.

I hate that he Halfwit-in-Chief has again acted impulsively and put many lives at risk.

I hate that he has no capacity for critical thinking. When his advisors gave him options, including the extreme option of General Qassim Suleimani's assassination (reportedly added to make the other options look more reasonable), they forgot that this person is not reasonable. He is incapable of reason.

I hate that 45 made up a story about "imminent attacks" of which no one has evidence.

I hate watching babies being loaded on to air transports, with their heavy backpacks and their heavy guns, fresh-faced 18-year-olds, going to fight Lockheed Martin's battle.

ABC News

I hate that the Middle East is even more destabilized, that in the wake of this action, the U.S. is pulling forces away from fighting ISIS; Iran has announced that they will escalate their nuclear program; and Iraq is expelling U.S. troops.

I hate that Iranians will hate us even more.

I hate that there is already backlash against Iranian-Americans.

I hate that there are already civilian casualties in Iran, with dozens of mourners killed in a stampede during the funeral procession.

I hate that the "president" is flirting with war crimes by threatening to destroy cultural sites.

I hate that our United States Congress was kept out of the loop and the Senate Majority Leader is OK with it.

I hate that 45's motives are so transparent:

I hate that Homeland Security has issued a NTAS bulletin, one that directly affects people near and dear to me at their jobs.

I hate that we're barreling toward the darkest days yet.

I hate that shit like the below was sent out. We. Do. Not. Govern. By. Tweet.

These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020

I hate that assassination is an acceptable course of action in the 21st Century, or any century.

I hate and I love that I agree with Tucker Carlson:

Must Watch @TuckerCarlson Monologue on Iran

“There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can't kill them all, it's not our job. Instead, our government exists to defend and promote the interests of American citizens. Period."

Exactly, America First! pic.twitter.com/gxyLPK0CDo

— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) January 4, 2020

I love that we have freedom of speech and freedom of thought so that we may not swallow propaganda whole.

I love that we are still – for now – a Democratic Republic and we may tell our representatives what we think and what they should do. Contact them. Today.

"Things gained through unjust fraud are never secure." – Sophocles

Well, we're headed into another war, thanks to the Idiot-in-Chief. It's a topic for another post. Just one note about it, and then on to my regularly scheduled topic.



Senator Murphy wrote, "I hope I am wrong, but I suspect this White House is totally unprepared for the cascade of consequences that will follow last night’s actions."

You're not wrong, Senator. He had not thought of consequences because he does not think about consequences. He has never had consequences for his actions.

He needs consequences – lots of them – meted out hard.


**********


"Things gained through unjust fraud are never secure." – Sophocles

This blog post was going to be about Don the Con and his confidence game. But it quickly went down a very dark path.

He's a con artist extraordinaire. But not only is he a con man, he's a cult leader and an abuser. All his dark traits combine to form a dangerous concoction. There's more to Trump than just the psychology of the con man, as we'll see.

Paul Szep

The Con. Remember my recent post about his body language? Nearly all of his non-verbals are meant to broadcast confidence. In fact, con man is short for confidence man. A confidence man's greatest tool is that very confidence, which causes his marks to let down their defenses and trust him enough to buy what he's selling. A con man doesn't steal. A con man convinces you to willingly give him things.

Lots of people liken TЯUMP to a con man. Former Fox News reporter “Campaign Carl” Cameron, CNN commentator Don Lemon, 45's former personal attorney and current federal prison inmate Michael Cohen, former White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart, former Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, and others all have called him a con man.

And how does he do it? In short, he lies.

But his brazenness is also a big part of it. He is using the psychology of openness vs. secrecy to coerce his followers into thinking he is doing nothing wrong. There's a psychological shortcut we tend to use called "The Secrecy Heuristic." If something is deemed secret, it is considered to be more valuable. The researchers who named this psychological fallacy looked at it in a situation involving foreign policy. The subjects in the study judged information as more valuable when it was described as "classified" rather than "public." By extension, if someone asks Ukraine or China right out in the open to investigate his political rivals, or proclaim aloud that they can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it, well, that's nothing to worry about, right? If it was really bad, he'd want to keep it secret, wouldn't he?


The tactics of a con man.

Appropriately-named Maria Konnikova is an expert in the con. She's a Columbia- and Harvard-educated psychologist and author of a book entitled "The Confidence Game." Let her explain a little about Con-Man-in-Chief.

This is old (2016), but relevant. Note: I'm not a fan of Bill Maher, and I don't like the way he interrupts her, but Konnikova makes excellent points in this interview.




The "Dark Triad."

Ms. Konnikova's remarks on the "Dark Triad" of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism started me down a different path. Maybe 45's con man days were at their pinnacle when he conned New York City, charitable givers, college students, his investors, and the IRS.

I believe now we've moved far beyond a simple con.

The Dark Triad is "defined as a set of traits that include the tendency to seek admiration and special treatment (otherwise known as narcissism), to be callous and insensitive (psychopathy) and to manipulate others (Machiavellianism)." Sound familiar?

The traits of Machiavellianism:

• Only focused on their own ambition and interests
• Prioritise money and power over relationships
• Come across as charming and confident
• Exploit and manipulate others to get ahead
• Lie and deceive when required
• Use flattery often
• Lacking in principles and values
• Can come across as aloof or hard to really get to know
• Cynical of goodness and morality
• Capable of causing others harm to achieve their means
• Low levels of empathy
• Often avoid commitment and emotional attachments
• Can be very patient due to calculating nature
• Rarely reveal their true intentions
• Prone to casual sex encounters
• Can be good at reading social situations and others
• Lack of warmth in social interactions
• Not always aware of the consequences of their actions
• Might struggle to identify their own emotions

The traits of narcissism:

• Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation
• Taking advantage of others to reach own goals
• Exaggerating own importance, achievements, and talents
• Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance
• Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
• Becoming jealous easily
• Lacking empathy and disregarding the feelings of others
• Being obsessed with self
• Pursuing mainly selfish goals
• Trouble keeping healthy relationships
• Becoming easily hurt and rejected
• Wanting “the best” of everything
• Appearing unemotional

The traits of psychopathy

• Lack of empathy, guilt, conscience or remorse
• Shallow experiences of feelings or emotions
• Impulsivity and a weak ability to defer gratification and control behavior
• Superficial charm and glibness
• Irresponsibility and a failure to accept responsibility for their actions
• A grandiose sense of their own worth

I think all of these traits melt together in the dark, stinky poo-stew that is SCROTUS's psyche.


The Cult.

Some have described Trump as a cult leader. Steven Hassan, former member of the "Moonies" cult, develops this theory in his book The Cult of Trump. Anthony Scaramucci, 10-day Whitewash House Communications Director and recovered Trump supporter, also describes the phenomenon in cult terms.

Clay Jones

 Our friend Maria Konnikova looks at this con/cult/religion thing.

Traits of cult leaders

Cult leaders are typically narcissistic and very charismatic. They seem like they can provide what you are looking for, but they aspire to have power and control, taking rather than giving.

The Cult Education Institute describes potentially unsafe group/leader as:

• Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability
• No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry
• No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement
• Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions
• There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil
• Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances
• There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader
• Followers feel they can never be "good enough"
• The group/leader is always right
• The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible

Yeah. That's him. That's the president* of the United States.


The Abuser.

On these pages, I have written about the Abuser-in-Chief. Like an abuser, 45 uses fear to control his victims.

On the Cult Education website, they also give information about abusive relationships and the narcissistic tendencies of abusers. The New Yorker has described his language as the language of domestic violence. The Atlantic has also drawn parallels between his behavior and that of an abuser. And of course, we have ample evidence of his sexual abuse of women throughout the years. He abuses those close to him; he abuses who he can reach; he abuses the country.

The con man, the cult leader, the domestic abuser, are all just sides of the same pyramid. At the top, sits a dangerous man.

But these traits do not exist in a vacuum. The person with these traits needs a recipient.

➼ The con man has his mark. 

➼ The cult leader has his followers. 

➼ The abuser has his victim. 

➼ The "president" has his base.

The victims.

Maria Konnikova, again, on the psychology of the mark. The victim is usually emotionally vulnerable, lacking something, and trusting. The con artist can read what the victim needs, and he plays on that to turn it around to convince the victim to give the con what he wants. In the con's case, the victim eventually does some of the convincing himself.

Part of the psychology of Trump supporters lie in the psychological fallacy of "sunk cost." Basically, sunk cost is like throwing good money after bad. It's the opposite of "cutting your losses."

Sunk cost is the tendency of a person to continue to invest in a future event even when the past is no longer relevant to the future event. It can be an economic investment (continuing to pour money into a wreck of a car), an investment in time (attending a show for which one has a ticket, even though it won't be any fun), or an emotional investment (staying in a bad relationship). The person has invested so much into their beliefs that it feels like it costs more to let the beliefs go than to hold on to them.

Sunk cost is a justification, a self-delusion. It's not simply being vulnerable to a con artist. Sunk cost is irrational: the perfect trait for Trump supporters! And it's just where he wants them.

TRUMPeters have been loudly and staunchly, blindly supportive for three years. It's not psychologically easy to turn around and say, "oops, well, I was wrong." It feels better to dig deeper in. Think about when you have sunk time or money into a losing project. It feels horrible to abandon it, doesn't it? The tendency is to want to go ahead and finish it, despite the greater cost.

Several writers have described sunk cost as a trait of Trump supporters. Andrew Egger writes of the dangers of sunk cost in right-leaning Bulwark. Esquire has an excellent piece on the Trump base sunk cost and their remarkable gymnastics that they engage in to rationalize his irrationalalities.

Similarly, there's the psychology of cult followers, and as we've seen, TRUMPism has been described as a cult.

Cult followers have these traits. Remind you of anyone?

• Those who want to feel validated
• Those who are seeking an identity
• Those who are followers, not leaders
• Those who are seeking meaning
• Those who have schizotypal thinking
• Those who are highly suggestible
• Those who constantly blame others
• Those who are always angry
• Those who have very low self-worth

Here's a good read from the Utne Reader about Trump's cult-like milieu. Miguel A. De La Torre writes:

When authoritarian figures can do no wrong, the problem is not so much with the leader but with the followers, who, like followers of religious cults, willingly drink the proverbial Kool-Aid regardless of how high their IQ may actually be. Seeing their unearned, privileged positions threatened by merit-based concepts such as equality, they embrace cult leaders who present themselves as the only solution to their downward-spiraling predicament, or as Trump proclaimed while mounting the Republican National Convention stage: “I am your voice. I alone can fix it.”

Because only the cult leader can save us, he can do no wrong. Mao, Stalin, or Castro from the political left can do no wrong; Hitler, Mussolini, or Pinochet from the political right can do no wrong; Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, or David Koresh from the religious fringes can do no wrong. And when leaders can do no wrong, lemmings follow unto death.

It makes sense. 45 fits the bill for giving those in his base a sense of belonging. The racists and misogynists among them found that – finally – there is a powerful leader who shares their traits, who validate their beliefs and let them finally be free to express those beliefs.

Something else that helps cement his base: cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance "occurs when conflict emerges between what people want to believe and the reality that threatens those beliefs. The human mind does not like such inconsistencies: They set off alarms that spur the mind to alter some beliefs to make the perceived reality fit with one’s preferred views." The Right's cognitive dissonance is actually working to strengthen SCROTUS's supporters to him. They perform psychological gymnastics to explain away or justify his atrocities.

Here is another interesting article from Psychology today analyzing many other traits of Trump supporters including their obsession with celebrity; the validation of their racism that he provides; the fear factor and sensitivity to threat / Terror Management Theory (I looked at these traits in a post about characteristics of Trump supporters); and even the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The San Francisco Chronicle gives us more about the psychology of his supporters. It talks about the powerful combination of repetitive lies, whose constant repetition makes them believable, as well as confirmation bias – the tendency we all have to look for information that confirms what we already think we know and reject that which doesn't fit our mindset. Those tendencies, combined with a strong sense of tribe, keep his base firmly in his corner. They aren't wavering.


The cherry on top. 

As I've alluded to again and again on these pages, I firmly believe that there is not only an intersection of personality disorders such as the Dark Triad, but a further intersection with a neurological disorder, which, when stirred together with the real power that the United States presidency affords, makes a very dangerous soup. When we stir it all together, we get the Big Con, the Real Big one, the Con that the French describe best.



Thanks for reading, sister and brother resisters!

Fight back! #Resist!

2020 is here!

**************Happy New Year 2020**************

Clay Jones

As I begin my fourth year of blogging these weird, weird, times, I surrender to the tradition of an end-of-the-year recap. Today share my top five most-viewed posts, not of the last year but of the last three years.

#5. December 7, 2017. God Bless the United Shashe. It was an early look at his disordered speech.

#4. July 30, 2017. Tongue-Lashing: SCROTUSese Part 2. I examined the way his discourse is changing our very use of language.

#3. December 4, 2017. "O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that." -- King Lear. I sounded a warning about the new normal that we must reject.

#2. January 19, 2018. Thinking: the talking of the soul with itself. I looked at 45's physical exam, including the cognitive screening. I explained why I didn't think the screening results were valid.

...and my most-read post, by far:

#1. October 14, 2018. A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men. I took a look at the right's claims of harm to men from false accusation of rape in the wake of Kavenaugh. I looked at the real societal harms that men face, as well as the common false accusations that are a far bigger problem.


I've really enjoyed writing each of my 154 posts over the last three years. It has made me think and kept me sane. I thank you, my readers.

Now, let's get 2020 going!! We’ve got an election to do!