Women Are Under Siege

There is a war on women. 

Women make heartbreaking, scary, agonizing, beautiful decisions about pregnancy every single day. Some women ultimately choose to carry their child and give birth, even in difficult circumstances. Some, women, heartbreakingly wish they hadn't. And many women make the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. But until you face that decision, YOU DON'T FACE THAT DECISION.

And that is what the Supreme Court decided in the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, when it was decided that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to privacy, which provides the right of a woman to make a decision for herself whether or not to seek an abortion.

Here we are in 2019, and we're in the midst of an outright war against women. The extreme right has finally acknowledged that it's not about the fetus, or the child, at all. It's about controlling and oppressing women. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was right: the white patriarchy's view is indeed that a woman is less than human. And make no mistake. The white patriarchy will be the one benefitting from the control of women, particularly of women of color.

You know by now that there are several new state laws that have been signed into law this year. All of these have the aim of going to the Supreme Court to challenge the Roe v. Wade decision. Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, and Ohio have all passed laws this year, as well as Alabama with the most restrictive law, an outright ban. Twenty-five white men decided what the women in Alabama can do with their bodies. And the list of states is growing. The proposed Texas abortion bill would allow the death penalty for women who seek an abortion. Ah, the sanctity of life!

The dystopian future is now. This is a war on women.

We know that this is a war on women because punishments for women who seek abortion and the physicians who help them are harsh, but the punishments for the male impregnators – even rapists – are less, or nil.

We know that this is a war on women because people otherwise have autonomy over their body in life and in death. A person must give consent for a blood donation, for a medication injection, and for organs to be harvested after death.

We know that this is a war on women because most of the new abortion bans are "heartbeat" laws, which prohibit abortions once a heartbeat can be detected, which is at about six weeks gestation, earlier than most women are aware they are pregnant. (Nevermind that a six-week fetal "heartbeat" is a gross misnomer. It's not at all a heart, and it's far from a "beat." It's a group of cells that are organizing themselves to be able to produce an electrical current to a future human heart. Technology advances have allowed ultrasound to be able to detect this electrical flutter at a very early stage -- before the woman even has symptoms of pregnancy). The well-being of the women is secondary.

We know that this is a war on women because the United Nations has decreed that forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity.

We know that this is a war on women because the very states that are banning abortion have poor protections for children born in poverty and their mothers.

We know that this is a war on women because states are impeding access to birth control and reproductive care but men can get boner medication willy-nilly.

We know that this is a war on women because the government is allowing employers to dictate the choices women have regarding birth control.

We know that this is a war on women because rapists like these men are barely punished:

• A Michigan man who raped a 12-year-old (among other children) has been given joint custody of the child born of the rape.
• A preacher who repeatedly raped his 14-year-old daughter was given a light sentence because he is a Christian preacher.

We know that it is a war on women because at least one of the laws (Georgia) provides for punishment for women who have miscarriages.

We know that it is a war on women because of rhetoric like this: Florida House Speaker José Oliva called pregnant women 'host bodies' 5 times in interview on anti-abortion bill

and this:

We know that it is a war on women because in Ohio, an 11-year-old girl must bear the child of her rapist.

We know that it is a war on women because these laws don't have exceptions for rape or incest.

We know that it is a war on women because the government willingly separates mothers from their children and keeps the babies in cages.

We know that it is a war on women because in the Alabama law, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

We know that it is a war on women because "sanctity of life" stops when punishment via the death penalty begins.

We know that it is a war on women because "sanctity of life" stops when the right to use firearms to kill schoolchildren begins.

We know that it is a war on women when the conservative desire for small government and freedom from government regulation flies out the window when it's a woman's body.


It's no coincidence that these oppressive laws are coming from primarily Southern states. The anti-abortion movement arose as way to oppress black people. The right glommed on to the religious angle of abortion because it wasn't politically correct to outright admit they were the racist caucus, but make no mistake, the origins are all about further oppressing the oppressed, not about preserving life. The religious right, abortion, and segregation are so enmeshed that there is no one without the others. Politico and The Rolling Stone outline this issue very well.


There have been memes and earnest outpourings from well-meaning women like the below, offering to be "Auntie" to out-of-state women wanting abortion, a sort of underground railroad of supporters.

But that only solves part of the problem. Even before these laws, several states have just one abortion clinic left. And wealthy women will always have the means to travel for a legal abortion, or to pay for a safe illegal abortion. As we know, banning abortion does not eliminate abortion. It eliminates safe abortion. The women who will succumb to devastation with an unsafe abortion are the poor, the low-income, the women of color.


You know a woman who has had an abortion.

According to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, nearly one in four women will have had an induced abortion by age 45. The majority of women seeking abortions are young and poor. More than half of abortions are for women in their 20s. Seventy-five percent of women who have abortions are poor or low-income. The demographics cross race, religion, region.

The reason you may not know that you know a woman who has had an abortion is because it is none of your damn business. Only the pregnant woman can weigh her circumstances and decide if she desires to carry a child. It is a woman's sacred decision, one that she may or may not share with anyone. ANYONE. It's not your business, it's not the neighbor's business, it's not even the father's business, unless she chooses it to be.

It is absolutely, positively NOT the government's business.


Soldiers, you must fight this war. What you can do:

Support our sisters.

Speak up for the right to an abortion, accompany a woman to Planned Parenthood, be a voice. Don't ask questions or give an opinion to a woman. Be there for her.

Call your state representatives and call for the preservation of the right to privacy and the right to an abortion. Some states are already moving toward decreeing abortion as a fundamental right. The governor of Pennsylvania has said he will veto any abortion bill that comes to him. Vermont and Illinois are bolstering abortion rights. Kansas has made it a constitutional right within the state.

Boycott the states who have restrictive abortion laws. Encourage businesses to boycott.

Look to other countries for guidance and inspiration, like Ireland and Poland.

Donate to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Guttmacher Institute, NARAL, the National Abortion Federation, or another pro-woman charity. (Please, as always, check with Charity Navigator or another watchdog before sending your money to any charity). Donate your time to those organizations, if you can't afford dollars.

March in the streets. Connect with your local progressive group, such as your chapter of Indivisible. Watch for marches. Here in Santa Barbara, there is a demonstration on Tuesday, May 21 at noon at the County Courthouse.

Stop calling it "Pro-Life." Call it what it is: "Forced Pregnancy."

VOTE in 2020. Vote for women, vote for people of color, vote for women of color. Talk to other women, mobilize women to vote in your area. Help causes that get out the vote in red states, and in areas with people that the government are trying to disenfranchise.

#RESIST

And now for some comic relief:

George Carlin from 22 years ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.




And Brent Terhune this week:

Getting scared, but holding on to hope

 R.J. Matson   

Despair resurgence: This week more than ever it seems we are slipping into a dictatorship. And yet, in the end I return to hope. Take the journey with me.

Two esteemed lawmakers have used the words "constitutional crisis" this week. House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) uttered those words last week after becoming frustrated about yet another act of obstruction from Li'l Donny Moscow, and House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) joined him in the sentiment. Some say that those words used now and in this context are "bull" or "not yet." If it's not quite, it's very close to being a full-bore constiutional crisis.

I know the term "constitutional crisis" has been used a lot. We have seemed to have multiple constitutional crises since the Mango Mussolini came to power. I have used the term in these pages here and here but those weren't really constitutional crises. They were crises, for sure, but this set of circumstances threatens our very form of government.

If you haven't recently read the U.S. Constitution, I encourage you to. Read it here, or a modern translation here. And go to Washington D.C. and see it with your own eyes (here's a substitute if you can't get there soon). It's your document. It's moving to see.

If you read it, you will know more about the Constitution than the President*. But you probably already do know more. You know that our forefathers created three branches of government which are co-equal. Each branch is equal in power to each of other branches. And guess what is the super best part? WE THE PEOPLE get to say who inhabits each of those branches.

The United States Congress possesses constitutional duties of oversight and investigation. Refer to your document, Article 1, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” ALL legislative powers. ALL. Article 1 of your document goes on to enumerate the various powers Congress possesses, and it's a lot.

But 45 is flouting Congress's duties outright, refusing to comply with any request or subpoena in Congress's follow-up investigations to Robert Mueller's report. IMPOTUS has asserted executive privilege, although he waived that privilege long ago by cooperating, and allowing his minions to cooperate, with Robert Mueller, who was mandated to investigate the Executive Branch.

As Andy Borowitz reports, in another satire-is-just-too-close-to-reality piece, the framers of the Constitution have been very unfair to Donny Boy. And he's acting out to repair the unfairness of it all.

Obstructive behaviors have been rampant:

• SCROTUS has said outright, "We’re fighting all the subpoenas.” 
• Attorney General Bill Barr was a no-show to a House judicial hearing and refused to turn over the full unreacted Mueller report, and the House was forced to hold him in contempt.
• Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin is refusing to turn over 45's tax returns to Congress, despite a subpoena and despite a very clear and simple 1924 law that states that the Secretary of the Treasury "shall furnish" any tax return that Congress requests.
• Former White House Counsel Don McGahn said he will also refuse a subpoena to provide documents to Congress and is facing a contempt charge.
• Donny Junior was subpoenaed by the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee, causing a rift within the party. Donny has not yet decided whether to comply. 
• In all, Benedict Donald and his allies are blocking 20 investigations.

The Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch are in a stalemate. Congress doesn't have many more tools, but we may yet have hope. Their requests and subpoenas are being ignored, but they still have powerful options to try before turning to the courts. The pressure to impeach is growing. Speaker Pelosi has been circumspect about the option, but with the growing acts of obstruction, it is being talked about more. It must be done. We must pressure our Republican members of Congress to join the movement, to restore our government to stasis.

Congress should also consider using their power of inherent contempt. Congress has the power to assess fines and to make arrests. That power has not been used in nearly a century. A simple contempt charge like the one given to A.G. William Barr don't have much teeth, especially given that the Executive Branch is in charge of enforcing such charges. But thanks to old laws, Congress can send its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest those who scorn their contempt charges. Here's a great analysis of Congress's next steps, including inherent contempt, from Politico.

If Congress chooses not to impeach or arrest, all of these refusals will go to the third branch of government, the Judicial Branch, and may be hung up there for months and years.

Which brings me to the constitutional crisis part of this whole thing. The Judicial Branch may be the last hope to bring resolution to this stalemate. But I fear that the courts are becoming a place that is becoming less a co-equal branch of government than an extension of the Executive Branch. This was the basis for much of my anxiety this week.

IQ45 has worked feverishly -- and under the radar while the nation stomps out other fires from his willy-nilly match-throwing -- to stack the federal courts with "his" judges. I want want want to have faith in the court system, but my faith is slipping.

Last week the Federal court system saw his 100th confirmation of a conservative judge. While overall, this pace matches his recent predecessors, the difference is that most of SCROTUS's appointments have been in appellate courts. The appellate courts are powerful, just behind the Supreme Court, to which of course Red Don has appointed two Justices already (please, please, please, Ruth, hang in there!).

Just yesterday, TЯUMP pushed to limit judges' powers on declaring nationwide injunctions in their decisions. This is quite sobering. He is looking to LIMIT JUDGES' POWERS. Let that sink in.

Agent Orange has thought about the Judicial Branch in myriad ways, true to the maelstrom of his fucked-up "understanding" of our government and its various powers. It depends on his needs at the time, or the decision he recieved, whether he displays disdain or respect for the courts.

The Fanta Menace has long been disdainful of the Judicial Branch, even before he ran for president. He has disparaged individual judges, such as U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a judge with Mexican heritage, who presided over a Trump University case. Baby Fingers asserted Judge Curiel would not be fair because of his Mexican heritage.

TЯUMP has ranted about the Ninth District Court over and over when they ruled against some of his executive orders. You can read more of his attacks on the Judicial Branch from the Brennan Center or from the Washington Post.

On the other hand, he has blatantly invoked the Supereme Court, counting on the court to bail him out in case of impeachment:

The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 24, 2019

He seems to think that the Supreme Court is "his" court, just as he believes the Attorney General is "his" personal attorney. Will the conservative-leaning court be able to stay impartial as a third body of checks and balances? What if he has the opportunity to place another Justice?  With his appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, it's looking like a good ol' boys club. It's scary stuff.

The Demander-in-Chief has often implied that "Republican" judges are more friendly than "Democrat" judges, and one whine about an "Obama judge" who ruled against his asylum policy prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an unprecedented rebuke, stating "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

And this is where my hope is renewed. Wise words from wise judges. Our last great hope for the preservation of our government is in the courts. Our sage forefathers gave us a powerful system of checks and balances, and this is the greatest test that it has ever seen. We must place our faith in the truth that our judges and Justices are indeed impartial arbiters of the law and can deftly separate their own political biases from their lawful decisions. Our country cannot be so divided that our most impartial citizens, elevated to benches across our great nation, fall into the divide.

Indeed, many other judges and attorneys have rebuked Prima Donald's fantastical assertions.

Judge Carlton Reeves of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, had strong words. He said:

"When politicians attack courts as 'dangerous,' 'political,' and guilty of 'egregious overreach,' you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South. When leaders chastise people for merely 'us[ing] the courts,' you can hear the Citizens Council, hammering up the names of black petitioners in Yazoo City, [Mississippi].... When the powerful accuse courts of 'open[ing] up our country to potential terrorists,' you can hear the Southern Manifesto’s authors, smearing the judiciary for simply upholding the rights of black folk. When lawmakers say 'we should get rid of judges,' you can hear segregationist senators, writing bills to strip courts of their power."

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, age 99, also issued a rebuke in recent days. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (read on CNN if you don't subscribe to the WSJ) worried that, "The President is exercising powers that do not really belong to him....I mean, he has to comply with subpoenas and things like that."

More than 800 (!!) Federal prosecutors across the country, who served under both Republican and Democrat presidents, signed a letter stating that if 45 were a private citizen, there would be no doubt that he would be charged with obstruction of justice. The letter states plainly,  "Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

Just this morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that many conservative attorneys are also adding their voice to the alarm, calling for impeachment. The group includes odious and very conservative John Yoo, who wrote a memo advocating for torture during the Bush II years. The group also includes conservative attorney George Conway, a frequent and loud voice in the resistance, and husband to Twitler mouthpiece Kelly Anne Conway.

SCROTUS debases all that he touches, but we can't let him debase the courts any longer. He may believe that the Supreme Court is "his" watchdog, but our Constitution says differently. We must have faith that our judges and attorneys take their oaths seriously and work for the interests of the nation. Chief Justice John Roberts has a huge responsibility in keeping the Supreme Court impartial, and working to restore Americans' faith in the Court. If we don't have the Judicial Branch at this point, we don't have .....anything.



Let's not let our fear and anxiety paralyze us. Keep working out there! Contact your Members of Congress, contact leaders of Congressional committees, write letters to the editor (Resistbot can help with all that). March in the streets, make art, support our free press. You know, #RESIST!





Aside: if you are at all like me, you have been learning a lot about our government during the last two-and-a-half years. Here are some links if you thirst for more knowledge.

Reuters explains about Congressional subpoenas and contempt citations.

The National Constitution Center, a non-profit Constitutional museum in Philadephia, explains more about inherent contempt.

Elections belong to the people

“Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” ― Abraham Lincoln

Voting. Our most sacred act within our democratic republic. We must not turn our backs on the potential of having our elections stolen from us! 

One of the chief charters of Robert Mueller's investigation was the Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election. His findings are explained in Volume I of his report. As you know, Mueller didn't find any prosecutable charges for conspiracy in his investigation into whether 45's campaign was entrenched with the Russians. There was a lot of stinking rot found, but nothing that Mueller felt could be successfully prosecuted. But he did find that Russia interfered in our election in "sweeping, systematic fashion." The Russians targeted the Democratic party by stealing emails and data and worked to bolster TЯUMP's campaign, while sowing societal and political discord, through social media.

So, what has been done in response to this assault on our election, and what has been done to ensure that our free and open democratic elections are not tampered with in the future?

Less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, Congress revealed to the nation that Russia had interfered in our election process. There was no doubt that it was the Russians. Every one of our intelligence bodies agreed. In response, after the election and about a month before he was to leave office, President Obama wrote an executive order to impose sanctions on Russia, and expelled 35 Russians from the United States.

TЯUMP, on the other hand has never once acknowledged that Russia interfered. To this very day, he calls it "the Russian hoax." In fact, he has worked to sow seeds of doubt in his base, saying the interference could've been anybody, including "somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds." Lord Dampnut has also said that he had talked to Putin and Putin reassured him that Russia wasn't involved. Donocchio simply took this dictator and enemy of the United States at his word and furthered Putin's lies. Just a few days ago, he shared a long telephone call with Putie and among many topics of conversation, Russian interference did not come up, but the "Russian Hoax" -- the Mueller report -- did.

Steve Sack

Several congressional committees began investigating the matter in early 2017, but the investigations became contentious and unwieldily. When suspicions arose that TЯUMP or his campaign worked with the Russians, and shortly after Fuckface von Clownstick fired Comey, the Special Counsel was appointed on May 17, 2017. Robert Mueller assembled a crackerjack team of FBI agents and skilled attorneys and got to work. During the course of his investigation, Mueller brought charges against 28 entities and people from Russia. The charges he brought against Amercians (chiefly, those in the Commander-in-Grief's inner circle) were for lying about contact with Russia, not for conspiring with them.

According to Politifact:

In February 2018, the special counsel charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller targeted the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked company that engages in influence operations and aimed to spread distrust toward candidates and the American political system. By mid 2016, the Internet Research Agency had established a strategy of supporting Trump’s candidacy and disparaging Clinton.

In July 2018, the special counsel indicted an additional 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and leaking of emails and documents. 

The special counsel also charged Richard Pinedo, a California resident, with identity fraud. Pinedo sold bank account numbers over the internet to the Russians. His lawyer said he had no connection to Trump and was unaware that customers were involved in the Russia influence operation. Pinedo pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in prison in October 2018. 

Maria Butina, a Russian living in the United States, pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an illegal foreign agent in December 2018. Butina has been accused of trying to infiltrate Republican power circles by reaching out through conservative groups such as the National Rifle Association. The indictment doesn’t mention Trump, although the New York Times reported that she tried to help broker a secret meeting with Trump and Putin during the 2016 campaign. Butina was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. and not Mueller; however, she is cooperating with the Mueller investigation and in February federal prosecutors sought to delay her sentencing.

And that's about the extent of the consequences for Russia.

Seriously, in the last two-and-a-half years since we've known about the interference, Obama's sanctions and expulsions and Mueller's charges have been the only responses from the United States.

Our intelligence community firmly believes that the Russian efforts to influence our election go all the way to the top, to Vladimir Putin, so saying in a report released on January 6, 2017. And more recently, as late as last week, the FBI did announce that they are beefing up their counterintelligence operations. FBI Director Christopher Wray acknowledges that the threat still exists and that the U.S. must get one step ahead. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats agrees. Given that the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence are under the Executive Branch, one could technically say, as that article does, that "the administration" is working to combat foreign interference into our elections.

But 45 himself has never once condemned the actions. Just the opposite. He has denied that Russia was involved, outright praised the actions, and fawned over Putie every chance he gets (read my post about their love affair). In fact, his son-in-law and Secretary of Busy Work Jared Kushner recently downplayed the interference, saying during Time's 100 event, "it was just a couple of Facebook ads." Obviously he didn't read Mueller's report.

Sidenote: It seems that no one in the inner circle has read it. I'm not convinced that A.G. William Barr read the entire report. He admitted that he didn't read the evidence. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), holding up what looked to be about half of the report, admitted he hadn't read the entire report. It's seriously disgraceful that one of the most senior lawmakers of our nation has not read one of the most important government documents of a generation. Disgraceful also, but not surprising: we can be fairly certain that Baby Fingers himself hasn't finished with the cover yet.

Andy Borowitz

Lindsey Graham, sometimes a reasonable Senate Republican and sometimes a screaming banshee, has made concerning noises about Russian interference, has pushed back on Kushner's statements, and has called for more sanctions. His voice seems to be echoing in the Republican void, though. In 2018 the GOP House and Senate voted against renewing funding to to beef up election security. There really hasn't been a lot of legislation introduced. There are three pieces of current legislation that I could find. The Defending Elections against Trolls from Enemy Regimes Act (DETER Act), The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act (DASKA Act), and The Honest Ads Act have been introduced, but none has gotten past the introduction phase. One piece of legislation, The National Defense Authorization Act, which has become law, which includes a section outlining an Department of Defense offense for foreign hackers. There are a few other bills that have been introduced by Congress that address election security. You can read them for yourselves, but none of the bills, to my reading, really have teeth. I was dismayed that close to diddly-squat has been done in the last two years.

There is speculation that the motivation for Hair Twitler to deny with all his being that the Russians interfered goes to his fear that the truth about Russian interference threatens the legitimacy of his presidency. Psssst... Mr. SCROTUS sir? That train has left the station! 

We'll never know if the interference really and truly changed the course of the election, but given its immensity, its relentless attack on Secretary Clinton and targeted support for TЯUMP, along with sowing social and political discord among us, I believe it did. Given those facts and the fact that he did not win with a majority of the popular vote, he is very much correct that the legitimacy of his election is in question. Unfortunately, we don't have a constitutional roadmap for do-overs, so our hands are tied.

We must look forward and acknowledge that interference is not going to stop; it's only going to get more sophisticated. What are solutions?

Facebook, home of much of the discord-sowing, has done a little to combat propaganda and fake news, but I wonder if it's enough. Tangentially, Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram have banned most ultra-right-wing extremists in an effort to stem misinformation and hate.

Though there is no evidence that the Russians hacked into actual election computers at the voting point, there is no reason to think that they won't try. The Brennan Center for Justice has many suggestions for defense against interference. They've published several papers on aspects of shoring up our election integrity, including advocating for a return to more audit-able ballots. I encourage you to read all of the Brennan Center reports. They are written by smart, knowledgeable citizens. The Council on Foreign Relations suggests a three-prong approach for combating foreign interference. Little Sister Resister believes we need a bipartisan task force -- or a whole new Congressional committee -- devoted to looking deep and wide at all aspects of our elections and making strong recommendations to Congress and the states for immediate action.

We must do more, and quickly! We can't let 45 and his indifference and his lies set the narrative and embolden Putin any more. Read those papers, and if any of those, or other, solutions make sense to you, talk to your state representatives as well as your members of Congress to urge action to make our sacred ballots unbreakable and unquestionable. Our elections belong to us, and we must ensure that is the truth forever.


Stay informed, be an active citizen, and don't turn your back on the fire!

#RESIST!

Should he stay or should he go?

...if he goes, there will be trouble. If he stays, it will be double.
(with apologies to The Clash)

Bill Bramhall

What you can ignore:

• 45's screams of "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION"
Robert Mueller's report is scathing. Though he did not find not enough evidence for prosecutable conspiracy charges, Mueller outlined plenty of evidence for obstruction of justice, gave a stomach-churning account of the corruption that oozes from 45's pores, and clearly intended to punt the matter to the United States Congress to take the next steps.

• Everything that Attorney General William Barr has spouted.
He really has no say in the matter. He may be acting as if he is SCROTUS's personal lawyer, which somehow SCROTUS perceives the A.G. to be, but he doesn't have a dog in this fight. It is between us (via the U.S. Congress) and 45. Not only that, but he's lost all cachet. He has no credibility left. He has revealed himself to be just another SCROTUS lackey.

Where do we go from here? We need to do something about the Toddler-in-Chief. When? How?

The evidence for obstruction of justice is plenty. In his report, Mueller's report laid out each suspected act of obstruction and presented the evidence that points to criminal obstruction in a number of cases. Here is a nice chart that lays it out. There are eight obstructive acts that meet all three tests.

And here is that chart maker's further analysis and heat map of each act of obstruction. It helps us to understand each charge and the nuances of evidence.

Because of a Department of Justice rule that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, Mueller declined to make a prosecutorial judgment based on that rule. The Special Counsel is part of the DOJ, so therefore he can't make a prosecutorial judgment. But he clearly states multiple times that 45 cannot be exonerated. We have a criminal in the Whitewash House. That's plain. It's clear that Congress is the body that would be the one to take the helm to impeach and bring charges.

What should Congress do?

Democrats are divided on the question.

There are plenty of people calling for impeachment. Of the major 2020 Presidential candidates, Sen. Liz Warren (D-MA) was the first to call for impeachment. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and former Rep. Beto O'Roarke (D-TX) agree with her.

On the immediate impeachment side, the argument could be made that it is simply Congress's duty to remove a criminal from office. Each Member of Congress has been sworn to defend the Constitution, and it is their Constitutional job to provide oversight and checks and balances. It's their duty. Pure and simple. But nothing in these days (now Backward Day # 826) is pure or simple. Initially, I was of the mind that impeachment should be pursued immediately because it is the right thing to do, whether politically expedient or not. The President* is a criminal, and no one is above the law. Removing him from office is right. And because leaving him there will embolden him and cause more damage to the country. As Sen. Warren said, “There is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution."

Others called for more investigation, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), urges caution and more investigation before starting impeachment proceedings, saying "He's just not worth it." I'm not too fond of her reasoning, which seems to be politics first and foremost, but I respect the thought that more investigations and increased public support is perhaps needed before impeachment goes forward. She also feels that the issue will be too divisive. We certainly don't need more division, especially within the Democratic Party. I've gained so much respect for her and her political savvy since the 115th Congress has been sworn in, so I must give her views some props. Joe Lockhart, President Clinton's press secretary, writing in the New York Times, pushes the political motivation further: leaving SCROTUS in office will work to destroy the Republican party altogether. Intriguing thought, but I hate the part that is political, because it cheapens the righteousness of what we need to do.

Bernie has concerns that Congress would not be able to do legislative work if impeachment proceedings go forward, saying:

...if for the next year, year-and-a-half, going right into the heart of the election, all that the Congress is talking about is impeaching Trump and Trump, Trump, Trump, and Mueller, Mueller, Mueller, and we're not talking about health care, we're not talking about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, we're not talking about combating climate change, we're not talking about sexism and racism and homophobia, and all of the issues that concern ordinary Americans, what I worry about is that works to Trump's advantage.

I personally think that argument is hogwash. Our representatives are intelligent and talented. They can multi-task. His view that, as CNN summarizes, "the way you beat Trump is on policy, not on personality," doesn't hold water either. President Pence would put forth the same conservative policies, and it is very much TЯUMP's "personality" that is the problem. He is a dictator-in-the-making, a dangerous force. If it were as simple as arguing healthcare policy and debating minimum wage or racism, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in. If it were simply about policy, I wouldn't be writing this blog, there wouldn't be protests in the streets, we wouldn't be using the courts to fight against various other questionable acts that 45 has committed. He may be committing new crimes of obstruction and witness intimidation today as he continues his Tweet Attacks. Our very constitutional government is at risk with Individual-1 in office.

Another argument for waiting is that an impeachment by the House is doomed to fail in the Senate, and Baby Man would just have more all-cap cries of "TOTAL EXONERATION!" and become a martyr to his base. If we take our time to fully develop the charges outlined in the report, perhaps we gan garner more bipartisan support for impeachment. Further, the Mueller report outlines only one crime: obstruction of justice. There are plenty of other investigations that are underway, both in the House and in NY state, and those should be allowed to flourish.

Then yesterday, the Washington Post published an elegantly written op/ed by Hillary Clinton. Her arguments for waiting make much sense to me. She looks to our history dealing with Watergate, the 1998 impeachment, and the nation's response after 9/11 in deciding what course of action we should take today. She calls for "being deliberate, fair and fearless" -- all sacrosanct American ideals. She says, "We have to get this right." Truer words have never been written. Rushing to a conclusion may be damaging. Perhaps waiting and investigating further is the right thing to do. It's not purely political to go forward deliberately. Please read her piece.

Hillary calls us all to action:

Of all the lessons from our history, the one that’s most important may be that each of us has a vital role to play as citizens. A crime was committed against all Americans, and all Americans should demand action and accountability. Our founders envisioned the danger we face today and designed a system to meet it. Now it’s up to us to prove the wisdom of our Constitution, the resilience of our democracy and the strength of our nation.

And so, I also entreat you. This is an important debate; we're at a crossroads for our Democracy. You have good thoughts about our next course of action. Please tell your Members of Congress your thoughts and what you would like them to do. They work for you. Here is where to find the contact information for your representatives. Or better yet, enroll with Resistbot. It's easy -- and free -- to send a fax or letter to your MoCs by interacting with Resistbot via text, Twitter, or Facebook Messenger. Do it!

RESIST!



Volume I of Mueller's report, outlining the Russian interference in our 2016 election, was sobering. Stay tuned for LSR's investigation into what steps have been taken so far to ensure that there is no meddling in 2020 and beyond.

It's heeeeere....

 "Would your family welcome a serious investigation of these disturbances by someone who can make firsthand observations?" -- Dr. Lesh, Poltergeist 

....And like a ghost, the Mueller investigation will be haunting SCROTUS for years to come.


A redacted version of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election by Robert S. Mueller III, in two volumes, was released to the public on Thursday, April 18. Little Sister Resister wanted to read it with an empty mind and learn firsthand what the report had to say. It was hard for a media junkie to avoid news articles and satire comedy monologues! But after waiting two years, I wanted to gift myself the unspoiler-ed version.

Armed with a cup of strong tea in my new Rising Sun Earthworks custom mug and a fresh ream of printer paper, I got to work.  I read it! Cover to cover! The whole darn thing!

It's worth the read. I encourage my readers to download the PDF, print it out, or buy a copy. There is information you should know, and you get some well-explained law lessons on the way. Mr. Mueller knew his audience. It's us, the American people. Don't be daunted. It's your right and privilege to take part and be informed.

My initial reactions to the volumes on the investigation into Russian election interference and the investigation into Presidential* obstruction of justice: Holy Cow! and Holy Guacamole!


Volume I surrounds the Russian interference itself. Holy Cow! It goes deep and it goes wide. My brief notes on the first reading:

 • The hacking and social media disruption was massive. Russian operatives were highly organized, thorough, and relentless. From stealing many terabytes of DNC data and Democratic emails to duping hundreds of thousands -- possibly more than a million -- of Americans (including TЯUMP associates) by feeding propaganda, they undoubtedly influenced the election.

• The only thing that saved TЯUMP affiliates of conspiracy charges is their pure dumbness. From the bottom of page one:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities (due to dumbness)." (parentheses mine)

• Paul Manafort is pure scum. His saving grace in Mueller not finding conspiracy charges against him was his massive greed. He didn't care about the election of the Boychurian Candidate. He only cared about lining his pockets. Not that a different motivation would have been justified, but wow. Greedygreedygreedy.

• Julian Assange is pure scum. I had been on the fence about Assange and WikiLeaks. Whistleblowers have their place and their importance, but after reading this report, I am more cemented in the Assange is Scum category. He's not a whistleblower; he's just another conservative hack. A technologically sophisticated, probably mentally ill conservative hack, but a hack nonetheless. All he wanted was to bring down Hillary. He was behind the Seth Rich rumor, and that's sick.

• Who is he writing about on page 176ff? Mysteriously redacted, we might speculate that it's all about Donny Junior, as there is very little written about him in the rest of the document.

• School is in on page 180, where we are lectured pointedly on the term "collusion" and the word's relation to the legal term "conspiracy." Perhaps if SCROTUS ever does what I have done (read the full report), he may learn a thing or two about the law.

• The end result of the Russian election interference? It's plain on page 149: "Putin has won."


Volume II, concerning the obstruction of justice question. Holy Guacamole! It reads like a thriller. If the bad guy was an impetuous toddler. And if his henchmen were at-their-wits-end babysitters.

• The man just couldn't shut up. Or keep his Twitter thumbs still. He dug his own Hole o' Obstructionist Behaviors with a big honkin' obstruction shovel. What a maroon!

• Mueller plainly stated that the presumptive defenses against the investigation don't hold water, concluding "that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts."

• There is more evidence that 45 is just an overgrown toddler. My favorite: his first draft of the Comey termination letter.

While I greatly appreciate you informing me that I am not under investigation concerning what I have often stated is a fabricated story on a Trump-Russia relationship - pertaining to the 2016 presidential election, please be informed that I, and I believe the American public - including Ds and Rs - have lost faith in you as Director of the FBI.

He was insistent that Comey's statements about the fact that 45 was not under FBI investigation be included in the termination letter.

• Many of the grown-ups in the administration simply did not comply with his requests. Messages weren't delivered, errands weren't completed, lies weren't told. This was his --and the country's--saving grace.

• For example, in order to attempt to curtail the Special Counsel investigation, the 72-Year-Old Toddler dictated a speech that he wanted Jeff Sessions to give publicly (the notes were never delivered to Sessions):

I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS ... is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn’t done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn’t do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history.

• Vice President Pence is rarely mentioned in the document, with nothing substantial written about him. Redacted, maybe? Or maybe he's just been that good at blending in with the furniture over the last two and a half years.

• I noted "LIES!" multiple times in the margins. So many lies by so many people. Shameful.

• There is plain evidence of obstruction from many areas. Mueller very elegantly laid out each instance of questionable obstruction, and described the elements of each potential obstruction charge: the obstructive act, its nexus to a legal proceeding, and his intent. Though some of the acts did not rise to the level of legal obstruction, some of them did meet all three tests, to my reading, including:

• The multiple attempts to end the special counsel investigation
• Attempts to influence Attorney General Jeff Sessions by asking him to "unrecuse himself" (obsessively)
• Witness tampering, specifically Paul Manafort (hinting at a pardon) and Michael Cohen (intimidation)

• SCROTUS was obsessed with Sessions reversing his recusal, repeatedly comparing him to past attorneys general Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder, who "protected" their presidents, and invoking the name of his former attorney, mobster lawyer Roy Cohn, saying "he wished he was his attorney."

• Not only did Chicken Donald decline to be interviewed, he incompletely answered or declined answering the Special Counsel's written questions. Appendix D contains the questions and his answers.

• Page 156 and beyond, Overarching Factual Issues, is a sobering read. Mueller outlines the assertions that the theme of 45's conduct has been for self-preservation and intimidation. He states plainly:

But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. ... Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. ... the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened.

• There was a lot written about Constitutional power,  Executive Branch privilege, division of power, checks and balances, and corruption. The writing on corruption in the last section, III. LEGAL DEFENSES TO THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES TO THE PRESIDENT,  is especially poignant in our troubled times and lends itself to a judgment that though perhaps Mueller wasn't able to conclude or exonerate the President's* criminality, Hair Furor is very much corrupt. This fact is undeniable from reading the whole report. We should not have a corrupt leader, whether his corruption rises to chargeable offenses or not.

• More than once Mueller stated:

...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

He lays out in the first pages of Volume II why bringing charges against a president is tricky business and why he did not make charging decisions regarding the President* - most pointedly in the Introduction to Volume II. The president is not a normal citizen, but he is not above the law. On page one of Volume II he writes:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

On page eight he concludes:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

and

...the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

The whole introduction is worth the read and explains why he deferred bringing charges.

• Further, in his multi-page conclusion--another good read-- he says quite pointedly: "Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice." There is a lot of important stuff packed into the conclusions.

• He also writes that the President's removing principal officers (i.e., his cabinet) is his right and duty, but removing inferior officers (e.g., the FBI Director or Special Counsel) can have Congressional limitations placed.

• To my reading, I'm of the opinion that Mr. Mueller concluded that this lofty decision was not his to make, but that the Congress of the United States should take up the heavy decision of interpreting the evidence as presented and moving forward with impeachment or criminal charges. Or both. It's definitely not the Attorney General's place, despite what William Barr wants to assert.

• He quotes United States vs. Lee (1882) in the final conclusion, which brought tears to my eyes: "And the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person—including the President—accords with the fundamental principle of our government that 'no [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.'"


So let it be written. So let it be done.




Now, LSR gets to go read and digest others' interpretations. I'll be back soon with a post outlining my synthesis of smart people's analyses!

In words are seen the state of mind and character and disposition of the speaker.

"In words are seen the state of mind and character and disposition of the speaker." - Plutarch


If you are a new reader, I am a Speech-Language Pathologist. I just celebrated my 30th anniversary of professional life! The vast majority of my experience has been with the adult populations with neurological disorders. I work with stroke patients, folks with dementia, Parkinson's disease, brain tumors. I've worked with someone with neurosyphilis. I've worked with myasthenia gravis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease), hypoxic brain injury, gunshot wound to the head, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury. I've worked with folks with unusual conditions that caused cognitive-communication problems, like calcium overdose and  anaphylaxis. You name it, I've probably seen it.

The "pathologist" in my title is not by accident. We are diagnosticians, and because we are so well-versed in neurology and speech, language, and cognition, sometimes we are the first ones to notice symptoms and start the down the path of a diagnosis. I'm a little bit qualified to make judgments on a person's speech and language behaviors.

We have this man in Washington DC with a plethora of well-documented speech and language samples, recorded for us with high-quality audio and video, preserved for eternity, and easily accessed. And as a political and news junkie, you gotta know, I access it!                                                                                                                  

I've written several posts about 45's cognitive-communication and speech symptoms. If you'd like to revisit them, they are under the labels dementia and speech disorders (I've also looked at his speech in the context of speeches and as rhetoric, which is also damaged, or rather damaging).


Time for another look.

45's speech, language, and cognitive symptoms seem to be getting worse. We should be becoming more concerned about it.

Dave Whamond

In the last few weeks there have been:

The Rambling Lie-Fest

In early March, some enjoyed a two-hour rambling speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. You remember that one, don't you? The one where he humped Old Glory? The speech clocked in at over two hours, described as the longest Presidential speech in history, and probably the most incoherent and bizarre.

Would you like to watch it? Didn't think so. But just in case, for history's sake:




Within the two-hour ramble, there were multiple bizarro moments. Here are just a few.

The wack-o put-downs of the Green New Deal, that illustrate his poor grasp of reality:

No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that is the end of your electric. Let’s hurry up. “Darling, darling, is the wind blowing today? I would like to watch television, darling” ... Their plan would remove every gas-powered car from American roads. Oh, that’s not so bad. They want you to have one car instead of two. And it should be electric. Okay. So tell people, no more cars, no more cars ... It would end air travel. But you’ll get on a train, don’t worry about it. You just have to cross off about 95 percent of the world. And it would force the destruction or renovation of virtually every existing structure in the United States. New York City would have to rip down buildings and rebuild ’em again. I don’t think so. This is the craziest plan. And yet I see senators that are there for 20 years, white hair. See, I don’t have white hair. I don’t have white hair. 

Ok. The end of civilization as we know it. And he doesn't have white hair? Whew! Thank Gawd for that. I really thought we were goners there for a bit.

About the Meuller investigation. If you can make sense of what he's trying to say, you're ahead of me! This just plain doesn't make sense.

Robert Mueller put 13 of the angriest Democrats in the history of our country on the commission. How do you do that? These are angry, angry people. You take a look at them. One of them was involved with the Hillary Clinton foundation, running it. Another one has perhaps the worst reputation of any human being I’ve ever seen. All killers. In fact it would have been actually better for them if they put half and half, and Mueller can do whatever he wants anyway, which he’ll probably. But we have conflicts. I had a nasty business transaction with Robert Mueller a number of years ago. I said, why wasn’t that mentioned? He wanted the job as FBI director. I did not give it to him. Why isn’t that mentioned? Jim Comey, Lyin’ James Comey, is his best friend. James Comey is his best friend. And those are a few of the conflicts. Other than that it’s wonderful.

Still with the election and the inauguration size!  Not pathological language/speech but pathological personality.

How many times did you hear, for months and months, "There is no way to 270"? You know what that means, right? "There is no way to 270." They couldn't get me there. We might as well have just given up. But there wasn't any way to 270.
In fact, I actually went up to Maine to get one, and I did win the one. But we didn't need the one. We didn't need it. We won Maine. We won our half of Maine, remember? You have Nebraska. We won both in Nebraska. We won the half we had to win in Maine. So we got the one, but we didn't need the one, because we didn't get 270; we got 306 to 223. 223-306.

It was raining. And it was wet, and the grass was wet. And women and men, and I consider them totally equal so I’m not going to say it’s harder—in fact it’s probably, with the men I know, it’s actually easier for the women to make the walk. But they had to walk all the way down. They had to walk in high heels in many cases. They had to walk all the way down to the Washington Monument and then back. And I looked and I made a speech, and I said, before I got on, I said to the people that were sitting next to me, “I’ve never seen anything like this. Look at that crowd.” And it was wide! Wide! We had a crowd—I’ve never seen a thing like it. And I have to live—I have to live with “crowd size.” It is all a phony deal, folks. But I saw a picture just the other night of practically no people. It was taken hours before our great day. That was a great day for us. That was a great, great day. People came from all over. People came from all over. So, “Sir, it doesn’t matter. Nobody cares.” I said, “But I care. And people care. People care.”

And the weary, odious claim,

"Right now, we have people in Congress that hate our country. And you know that, and we can name every one of them if we want. They hate our country."

Claiming that his request to Russia for Clinton's email was a joke, saying sarcastically in a bad self-impersonation:

“I’ve learned, because with the fake news, if you tell a joke, if you’re sarcastic, if you’re having fun with the audience. If you say something like ‘Russia, please if you can, get us Hillary Clinton’s emails, please, Russia, please, please get us the emails.’” 

And on. And on. And on.


Some of his discourse is just plain disorganized, "empty," non-sensical. Like his remarks at a different Republican event about Joe Biden:

“We’re going into the war with some socialist. It looks like the only non, sort of, heavy socialist is being taken care of pretty well by the socialists, they got to him, our former vice president. I was going to call him, I don’t know him well, I was going to say ‘Welcome to the world Joe, you having a good time?' ...Now you look at that [presidential announcement] speech and you see what’s happening and that speech was so tame compared to what is happening now, that trek up is one of the great treacherous treks anywhere, and Mexico has now, because they don’t want the border closed.”

In past posts I've portrayed some of his bizarre claims as confabulation. Confabulation is the disordered brain's way of filtering reality through distortions of perception and faulty memory. Confabulations sound like lies. Confabulations aren't reality, but the speaker thinks they are reality, and in true confabulation, there is no intent to deceive. Many times, confabulations are about really small stuff that doesn't matter. But here now, we have the ultimate con man's con man. He's had a lifetime of lying, conning, deceiving. Now his brain is disordered. Lies, confabulation, confusion...It's a recipe for disaster and quite concerning.        


The Saving of a Syllable

A few days after the CPAC speech last month, Dishonest Don had the slip of the tongue when he called Tim Cook, CEO of Apple Inc, "Tim Apple." He could've just let it slide. Hey, the wrong word came out. It happens to us all. The words "Tim Cook" and "Apple" are real close in his wee brain's file cabinet. He just hastily picked the wrong word.

That wasn't the problem. The problem was, he just couldn't let it go. He dug in. At first, he lied or confabulated that he really said, "Tim Cook Apple" but that he said the "Cook" so fast that it got lost. Sir, do you realize there are 1,000 cameras (with mics!) on you at all times? When that didn't work, he lied or confabulated that he intentionally cut out the "Cook" to save time. That's our SCROTUS!  Always looking to save a little time when he's talking! 

It's just bizarre. It only makes sense if you consider that his brain is impaired. A normal person wouldn't make such claims, especially in the face of video and audio proof, and that this kind of lie just. does. not. matter.


Do you know where your dad was born?

Of course you do! Because you have an intact brain!

Another confabulatory-type false claim came last week when he said his father had been born in Germany. Well, this is simply not true, can easily be verified, and was not a lie that was furthering any agenda. His grandfather, not his father, was born in Germany, and in fact, Donny and his father often intentionally lied that his family came from Sweden rather than Germany in order to further the family business in post-war America. This week's false statement, an autobiographical false statement, is one that is easily verified and doesn't really matter, is a perfect illustration of confabulation.


The Origin of Oranges



This is a puzzling error, and I'm pegging it as a speech error rather than a language error. It really seemed like he was groping a bit for the right sound sequence, and I could see the wheels turning when he erred on the word "origins," then he substituted with the word "beginnings," knowing he didn't say "origins" correctly. But still he tried again and again. Four attempts at "origins" and they all came out sounding like "oranges," though the third one was close to the correct pronunciation. His errors look like apraxic errors to me. Apraxia is a motor programming disorder. He had the word; he sounds of the word were all there, but the order was wrong (the /n/ at the end of the word "origin" came in too early). Apraxia is a neurological disorder.


Not Necessarily Thish Week

I don't have any samples of slurred speech (aka dysarthria, another neurological disorder) this week, but there are plenty of past examples. I outlined some in my post God Bless the United Shashe.


Windmill Cancer

And a couple of really bizarre false statements about wind power. One, that home values near wind turbines plummet 75%, and more bizarrely, "and they say the noise causes cancer.” Oh, the ubiquitous "they" -- those little men that occupy his head. This is not an example of confabulation, but probably more just an outright lie to throw dirt on sustainable energy sources. Any energy source that isn't "beautiful clean coal" or oil from his murderous friends in Saudi Arabia, gets slimed.

Milt Priggee

The Little Things Don't Matter

Another long-term patten of his, which is sort of a lie, or at least an attempt at deception, is that he often mispronounces a word, or mistakes one word for another, but goes on to pretend that he "meant to do that," by saying "or" or "and" in in correction. Why??

Here's is but one compilation from NBC News.




What is he smocking?

I won't even touch on his Twitter misspellings. That's another crazy twist on his tenuous grasp on the English language. Here is an analysis from The Week.

There are many other gaffes, like calling Venezuela a "company" or calling on the "president" of the U.S. Virgin Islands (ahem, that would be you, Mr. SCROTUS. I think you meant "governor"), or calling fire-ravaged Paradise, California, "Pleasure." These kinds of word substitutions (along with "Tim Apple") are semantic paraphasias, where the brain grabs a word similar in meaning to the intended word. Paraphasias are another common neuro-linguistic feature of a brain that is having difficulty with language. Each of these small mistakes should concern us. Normal people don't make so many of them!


The Sum of the Parts

We have a President* who has disorganized discourse, empty at times, incoherent much of the time, with confabulations, intermittent dysarthria, occasional apraxic errors, paraphasias, and whose behaviors are paranoid, apathetic, without inhibition, and inappropriate.

I'm more and more convinced that our President* has some sort of dementia, possibly frontotemporal dementia.

To remind you, dementias have both cognitive-communication traits as well as behavioral traits. Frontotemporal dementia is characterized by:

Behaviors (from the Mayo Clinic)

• Increasingly inappropriate actions
• Loss of empathy and other interpersonal skills
• Lack of judgment and inhibition
• Apathy
• Repetitive compulsive behavior
• A decline in personal hygiene
• Changes in eating habits, predominantly overeating
• Oral exploration and consumption of inedible objects
• Lack of awareness of thinking or behavioral changes

Impaired language traits in frontotemporal dementia typically arise from one of two types of Primary Progressive Aphasia (from the University of California, San Francisco):

• Nonfluent Varient PPA, when the patient has "complaints about pronouncing words or increasing trouble getting words out. Their speech may sound slurred, or their voice may change. As time goes on, people with nfvPPA have more trouble putting sentences together, and they eventually begin to speak slower and slower" or
• Semantic Variant PPA, when patients "have increasing trouble understanding the meaning of words, finding words or naming people and objects. As time goes on, people with svPPA begin to use more general names for specific things. For example, they might say “animal” instead of “dog.” As their word comprehension gets worse, they may eventually have a hard time understanding conversations."

It could be another type of dementia. Another strong contender is multi-infarct dementia (aka vascular dementia). This type of dementia is cause my multiple "mini strokes" all over the brain, most of them unnoticed. I'd put money on this kind of dementia, given the wide variety and the sudden clustering of symptoms that seem to be expressed, for example, his on-and-off dysarthria (slurred speech) and his off-and-on motor symptoms (the way he holds his water; his occasional tics and tremors).

There are many types of dementia, and all can have both behavioral and cognitive-communication components. He needs a neurologist to sort it out.


So, we have a man who is a life-long pathological liar, and now his brain is becoming pathological. As of  March 17, 2019, TRUMP has made 9,170 lies or misleading statements in 787 days. That's an average of almost 12 lies PER DAY of his Presidency, but the rate is accelerating, from 5.9 lies per day the first year of his tenure, to an average of 22 per day in 2019. The Washington Post keeps an on-going tally. You can also see PolitiFact's list.

Pathological liar. Neuropathology. A combination of a compulsive liar / sociopath and a serious neurological decline. Normal people do not act this way. Normal people do not make this quantity of mistakes, nor of this quality, nor do normal people defend or dig in to their errors. This is crazy nuts. He is not fit for the office. This person has access to 4,018 nuclear weapons. It's becoming dangerous!


And so, again, I entreat you. Resist. Call on your Members of Congress. Tell them your concerns. Ask them to do all they can to investigate and remove this person from office. If that doesn't work before next year, then get ready to mobilize for the election of 2020.


Thanks for reading.





.