home

Mike Johnson Re-elected House Speaker (By a Hair)

By a vote of 218 to 215, Republican Mike Johnson beat Democrat Hakim Jeffries for House Speaker. There was some drama as it took a phone call from Donald Trump to get two Republicans to change their vote. (One person voted "other").

I tuned in to hear the end of Jeffries' speech on You Tube.

He gave a flattering welcome to Johnson. Johnson then spoke and was gracious back to Jeffries. . Here's how Johnson described their agenda: [More...]

The American people want an America First policy.
We will start by containing our nation’s borders. We’ll deport illegal aliens and criminal aliens and finish building the border wall.
We will extend the Trump tax cuts (gets the largest applause)
He emphasizes our duty to restore American energy dominance, stressing the word dominance.
We will pass legislation to eliminate the green new deal. We will end the ridiculous EV mandates.
We will roll back the totalitarian fourth branch of government known as the administrative state ( I have no idea what that means.) < br /> We will make sure parents have the right to choose their child's education.
We will create a lean and faster more efficient federal work force.
He then attacks Democrats claiming "They tried to replace our military with social justice warriors. We have to put an end to this madness."... It is time to reinstate fear in our enemies.
He recites a religious prayer he claims was given or written by Thomas Jefferson that ends with the words "Jesus Christ Our Savior".

Shorter version: The military-industrial complex reigns supreme.

****

Update: See comments to this post below: The prayer likely wasn't written or recited by Thomas Jefferson once, let alone every day of his presidency for years, as Johnson claimed. According to the Monticello Organization, which is a repository of Jefferson's works and words, most likely it is from a 1919 revised version of the "Book of Common Prayer". Also see the linked sources at the bottom of this post.

(Disclaimer: My only knowledge of a "Book of Common Prayer" is the 1977 novel by Joan Didion, referred to in Wikipedia. (I had no idea <"http://www.talkleft.com/bookofcommonprayer_350.jpg">my hard cover version of the novel is a First Edition. It is such pristine condition I'm not sure I ever finished reading it, even though Joan Didion is my favorite author.) In any event, the point is that Joan Didion's novel is hardly an uplifting work or anything like a prayer. It takes place in an fictionalized country in Central America she calls Boca Grande and is about a woman named Charlotte Douglas. From Wikipedia:

Charlotte's beloved daughter Marin has run off with a group of Marxist radicals and taken part in an absurd act of terrorism, and in the wake of her daughter's disappearance, Charlotte's marriage to a crusading Berkeley lawyer (not Marin's father), has fallen apart.

Or, as Joyce Carol Oates described it in a book review she wrote for the New York Times:

Marin, Charlotte's 8‐year‐old daughter, was seen with several other young people detonating a crude pipe bomb in a San Francisco office building and later hijacking a plane to Utah, where they burned it in time for the incident to interrupt the network news. Now a fugitive, she participates in revolutionary activity, mainly by making tape recordings in which she speaks of “expropriation” and “firepower” and the need to destroy imperialist symbols. “The fact that our organization is revolutionary in character,” Marin says with solemn, mindless circularity, “is due above all to the fact that all our activity is defined as revolutionary.”

The use of the word "imperial" strikes a new chord. Isn't that how Donald Trump how envisions himself, with his offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark and take back the Panama Canal? It's a good thing Mike Johnson has such a pious backbone. He will need it to survive as speaker of a House where Trump believes he gets to call the shots, set the agenda and fire the person in charge should he fail to bring home the bacon. Last word: I wonder if it turns out Johnson made a fool of himself by referencing Jefferson as the author of the prayer he recited, whether he wrote the speech or a speech-writer wrote it for him. If it's the latter, will he fire the speech-writer? He should. If he can't correctly fact-check his own speeches, how badly will he butcher other facts -- ones that matter --- during his tenure as Speaker?

Does anyone want to venture an opinion about how he came up with Thomas Jefferson for the prayer, and whether he was right or wrong?

< Utopias: A Successful Investment Plan for Cities' Poorest Hoods | Felon Donald Trump Sentenced to Unconditional Discharge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Fake prayer (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by hardindr01 on Fri Jan 03, 2025 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    Thomas Jefferson never said the prayer Speaker Johnson ascribed to him.  Please see here for more information

    here is the link (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 03, 2025 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    from Monticello.org saying it's "spurious" that Jefferson used it, let alone created it.


    Parent
    Thomas Jefferson (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 05, 2025 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    Was not a Christian Trinitarian in any way, shape, or form.
    And obviously Johnson and his people didn't even research this at all.

    Parent
    I think they just like (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 05, 2025 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    the part about him having slaves. Before those 'woke' abolitionists came along.

    Parent
    It's OK to lie if its for... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 06, 2025 at 12:33:10 AM EST
    Jebus or the Fat Melon Boy.  If fact, the bigger the lie the better. Let the official re-writing of History continue.

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#2)
    by hardindr01 on Fri Jan 03, 2025 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    Not sure why the html link did not work: https:/www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/national-prayer-peace-sp urious-quotation

    Parent
    HUH? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jmacWA on Sat Jan 04, 2025 at 05:23:45 AM EST
    He gave a flattering welcome to Johnson.

    Will Democrats ever learn that being nice to these people is a waste of time.  I did not see anything on this speech, so I guess it's possible it was given tongue in cheek knowing it would get him nowhere.  I want to see Democrats stand up and call out Republicans every time they speak.  The election of this crackpot at speaker does not call for flattery.

    After finding a transcript I can see that it reads like he was civil more than flattering, but I would still like to see more combativeness from the Democrats in congress.

    What (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 04, 2025 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    a dark vision Johnson has for America. Not uplifting in the least but also what I expected from an apostle of the Dark Renaissance.

    Today is the day that Congress will (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 06, 2025 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    unconstitutionally certify Tr*mp as the winner of the 2024 election for President, effective January 20, 2025. I say "unconstitutionally" because paragraph 3 of the 14th Amendment plainly states that Tr*mp is disqualified from assuming the presidency, on the basis that four years ago today he "engaged in insurrection" against the Constitution of the United States. In Trump v. Anderson (3/4/24) the Supreme Court (mistakenly, imho, albeit unanimously) held that Congress, not the States, is responsible for enforcing Paragraph 3. But assuming that is so, it is therefore the duty of Congress today to refuse to certify the election of someone who does not have the minimum requirements for the office, just as they would if somehow a majority of the Electoral College had voted for someone who is not yet 35 years old, or who was not born in the United States. I wonder whether any members of Congress will object on this basis?

    So, in the end no objection was registered (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 06, 2025 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    although it must be noted that the Electoral College reforms enacted after 2021 make lodging objections must harder. Not even by the Colorado representatives, even though there was a full, adversarial trial in a Colorado court that resulted in a finding that Tr*mp had encouraged and thus "engaged in" an insurrection that disqualified him permanently from the presidency. That finding was affirmed, both factually and legally, by the Colorado Supreme Court, before being rather unconvincingly overturned by SCOTUS.

    Parent
    Unconvincingly or not, ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 03:02:14 PM EST
    ... it WAS nevertheless overturned. It is what it is. So fasten your seat belts, Peter, because it's going to be a rough flight. It's already been a bitter lesson for institutionalists such as you and me. Over the last nine years, we've learned that legal institutions we've long respected - the U.S. Supreme Court, our federal judiciary and the Dept. of Justice - are only as robust, good and competent as the people who've been entrusted to manage them, and that the system doesn't function optimally when those same people decide to place their thumbs on the scales.

    And as I write this, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has blocked the public release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's final report because of course she would, it's an entirely logical outcome for someone who's got her head so thoroughly shoved up her Lord God Creamsicle's a$$ that their tongues are entwined on the back end. This shamelessly incompetent woman - and make no mistake, this IS as slavishly corrupt a judicial action as they come - would have no business serving on a county water commission, never mind being worthy of a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

    Karma has finally caught up to the United States, and our country is getting the leader and government it deserves. That we will survive the next four years, I've no doubt. But I also believe we will emerge on the other side of this experience as a nation very much diminished in both our standing and our moral stature on the world stage, with our allies and friends having concluded that we are a vain and arrogant people who can neither be relied upon to stand by them, nor trusted to do the right thing.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sorry if I was not clear, but (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Colorado XIV/3 decision on purely procedural grounds - that it was up to Congress, not individual states, to find a presidential candidate disqualified for having engaged in insurrection. The Supremes did not overturn either the factual or the legal determination about the nature of Tr*mp's conduct or its constitutional implications.

    Parent
    Agreed. The justices didn't do that. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 08, 2025 at 01:06:58 AM EST
    Rather, what they DID do was magically divine an unstated provision requiring prior congressional authorization to enforce Amendment XIV, Section 3, which somehow went completely undetected by the rest of us mere mortals for the better part of 156 years.

    Further, I would note the distinct lack of written record regarding any such legislative intent as divined by SCOTUS in any of the congressional minutes or journals from 1866, when Congress approved Amendment XIV and Secretary of State William Seward transmitted it to the states for their ratification.

    Now, I'm no attorney, but I do know U.S. history and I do know how to read the law, thanks to my experience writing it for the Hawaii state legislature. The original intent of Amendment XIV, Section 3 was to specifically bar former Confederates who engaged in insurrection against the United States and our Constitution from ever again holding elective and appointive public office at the local, state, territorial (Arizona and New Mexico weren't granted statehood until 1912) and federal levels.

    Therefore, I'd say it was pretty clear that Congress intended and indeed, depended upon state, territorial and local jurisdictions to enforce Amendment XIV, Section 3. Further, that particular congressional intent was still apparent in September 2022 and March 2024, for reasons discussed below.

    In January 2021, Otero County (NM) Commissioner Couy Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, traveled to Washington D.C. to attend Donald Trump's Jan. 6 rally on the National Mall, whereupon he then joined the mob, marched to the Capitol and engaged in insurrection. He was found guilty of criminal trespass in a federal bench trial in Washington on March 22, 2022. Pursuant to Amendment XIV, Section 3, he was then removed from his job as county commissioner by New Mexico District Judge Francis Mathew on Sept, 6, 2022, specifically citing the defendant's insurrectionary actions as due cause.

    The U.S. Supreme Court's convoluted reasoning in Anderson v. Trump certainly didn't save Griffin. In fact, after the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld Mathews' ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 2024 declined to even hear Griffin's appeal and let the original decision stand, which means that Couy Griffin is now forever barred from holding public office for life, unless both chambers of Congress specifically decide otherwise by respective two-thirds majorities.

    The late humanitarian Jane Addams once observed that the essence of immorality is our tendency to make exceptions of ourselves. I'd expound on that and offer that legally, immorality can be defined as the creation and upholding of a double standard of applicability for the exact same law, which is what the U.S. Supreme Court did by first exempting Donald Trump from being subject to disqualification under Article XIV, Section 3, only to then allow Couy Griffin's DQ to stand under the same constitutional provision.

    And that's why I called Chief Justice Roberts and his MAGA colleagues corrupt - and I'll further add, corrupt beyond any reasonable hope of redemption. I stand by that opinion.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Scary (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 11:37:06 AM EST

    The Militia and the Mole

    Outraged by the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, a wilderness survival trainer spent years undercover climbing the ranks of right-wing militias. He didn't tell police or the FBI. He didn't tell family or friends. The one person he told was a ProPublica reporter.

    A Freelance Vigilante: A wilderness survival trainer spent years undercover, climbing the ranks of right-wing militias. He didn't tell police or the FBI. He didn't tell his family or friends.
    The Future of Militias: He penetrated a new generation of militia leaders, which included doctors and government attorneys. Experts say that militias could have a renaissance under Donald Trump.
    A Secret Trove: He sent ProPublica a massive trove of documents. The conversations that he secretly recorded give a unique, startling window into the militia movement



    Read this earlier in the week. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jmacWA on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    It's a long read, but well worth it IMO.  And yes its SCARY.

    Parent
    It will make (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    a great streaming series

    Parent
    And sadly (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    not much else probably

    If Trumpo is going to "go after" some media entity Pro Publica looks likely.

    Parent

    3-6 inches by tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 07:43:51 AM EST
    BE PREPARED

    this morning I hit the food store, liquor store, drug store and dispensary.

    Let it snow.

    Tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    Justices Rule Trump Can Be Sentenced Tomorrow
    January 9, 2025 at 7:22 pm EST By Taegan Goddard Leave a Comment

    "President-elect Donald Trump can be sentenced Friday in his New York hush money case, the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling," CNN reports.

    "The high court on Thursday rejected Trump's emergency request to delay the proceeding, setting the stage for him to be sentenced just days before he is inaugurated on January 20 for a second term."

    "Four conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh - said they would have granted Trump's request."

    It should have been 9-0. Or at worst (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 06:59:52 PM EST
    7-2. Incredible that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would be as craven and unprincipled as SAA and CT. Apparently there are still some bridges of lawlessness that Roberts and Barrett will not cross.

    Parent
    Disappointing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 09:24:50 AM EST
    but the first sentence in Trump's obit will include the words convicted felon.

    So there's that.

    RIP David Lynch (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 16, 2025 at 07:26:24 PM EST
    An artist down to the soles of his feet, in country sorely in need of them. Whether it knows it or not.

    Farewell to Manzanar... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 17, 2025 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, whose memoir about living as a child in an internment camp during World War II put a personal stamp on the hysteria that led the United States government to imprison some 120,000 Japanese Americans, died on Dec. 21 at her home in Santa Cruz, Calif. She was 90.

    Farewell to Manzanar should be required reading. It's a wonderful memoir.  

    Manzanar

    "Feel? How did I feel?" she recalled in her Contemporary Authors essay. "For the first time I dropped the protective cover of humor and nonchalance. I allowed myself to feel. I began to cry. I couldn't stop crying."

    I took a motorcycle trip (none / 0) (#63)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jan 18, 2025 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    from San Diego to Reno many years ago. I specifically went up US395 so I could go by Manzanar. I had read the book sometime before that.

    Parent
    Cecile Richards... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 20, 2025 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    "If I have one regret from my time leading Planned Parenthood, it is that we believed that providing vital health care, with public opinion on our side, would be enough to overcome the political onslaught," Ms. Richards wrote in an essay in The New York Times in 2022. "I underestimated the callousness of the Republican Party and its willingness to trade off the rights of women for political expediency."

    If the rest of the world is embracing EVs, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jan 03, 2025 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    how does the US restore energy dominance if no one wants the GD oil any more?


    To me "dominance" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 03, 2025 at 04:58:36 PM EST
    for these f*ckers is just code for: "provide us with what we need or prepare to go to war."

    Parent
    Let's not forget (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 06, 2025 at 08:27:06 AM EST
    he might be speaker but he has a 1 (one!) vote majority.

    Until next year.

    I have heard (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 06, 2025 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    predictions that there may be 3 speakers by the end of the year. I would not be surprised by that. Every time the GOP has held the house since 2010 they have not been able to pass a budget only continuing resolutions.

    Parent
    I submit that.. (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 06, 2025 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    that January 6 be annually remembered as a National Day of Shame.

    Jezus (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    Trump Wants to Rename the Gulf of Mexico
    January 7, 2025 at 3:07 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 122 Comments

    "President-elect Trump on Tuesday told reporters he wants to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America as he bemoaned that Mexico was taking advantage of the United States on trade and immigration," The Hill reports

    Contrary to Donald's comments (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    I do NOT think we will survive the next four years.

    I need to figure out where to put my retirement investments. I am thoroughly convinced that the stock market will crash, severely, before the end of 2025. If my 401K and IRAs are wiped out, I will have to find a dumpster to live next to.


    Parent

    Schwab (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 06:52:51 PM EST
    emailed me wanting me to do a survey on my thoughts on the market for the coming year. Whether I was bullish or bearish on the year and why. I said bearish and the choice was the "political situation in DC". I mean we have an unhinged psychopath in the white house. I can't see anything good coming from that and the people controlling the senate and the house are total sycophants.

    I am worried like you about what is going to come. This is always the way it goes. The people that didn't want this will suffer along with the ones that asked for it.

    Parent

    It's like watching a bad movie (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 05:55:59 PM EST
    to see him talking, which he just DID, about in adding Greenland and Panama and annexing Canada.

    Parent
    Spell F**k (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    about INVADING Greenland and Panama and annexing Canada.

    Parent

    Parent

    PS (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 06:01:49 PM EST
    yes, I watched.

    It is the last time I will ever willing watch him speak longer than it takes me to find the remote

    I swear by the old gods and the new.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 06:45:18 PM EST
    watched the whole thing, kind of fascinating in a train wreck kind of way.

    Parent
    If I was able, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 07, 2025 at 08:01:12 PM EST
    I'd be lining up to join either the Canadian or Danish army. And who eff is the demented SOB that he thinks he can just arbitrarily rename bodies of water. What's next? He renames the Atlantic Ocean to something even more stupid?


    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#31)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 08, 2025 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    He would want to rename the Atlantic Ocean the Trump Ocean.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 08, 2025 at 08:47:44 PM EST
    During a press conference held in Mexico's National Palace, Sheinbaum stood in front of a map from 1607 that labeled the United States as "Mexican America" and the gulf as the "Gulf of Mexico"--nearly 170 years before the United States was founded in 1776.

    "Why don't we call it Mexican America? It sounds pretty, no?" Sheinbaum mockingly asked.

    Parent

    A diplomatic solution: (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 08, 2025 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    The Gulf of North America.  But, what do we do about the state of New Mexico?   And, does the  re-naming lower the price of eggs?

    Parent
    The funeral service (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 03:50:31 PM EST
    at Washington National Cathedral for Jimmy Carter was solemn and dignified as was fitting for the former President.   The eulogies by family members and colleagues featured the integration of character and integrity in his personal and political life. President Biden gave  a well-delivered  presentation, including heartfelt memories going back to then 31-year old Senator Biden's early endorsement of Governor Carter's bid for the presidency.

    The dignitaries, in largest measure, showed funereal civility to the President-elect although former President Bush and Mother Pence were unceremonious.

    The normalization (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    while I understand no one has a choice is in a way the scariest part.

    Part of me doesn't want to see him bantering with Obama.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 06:11:41 PM EST
    civility and politeness, but no need to yuck it up.  Michelle did not attend.  However, the familiarity with Obama may hurt Trump with his followers.  Prefer the Bush approach of not shaking hands with Trump. Or, the Carter family skipping over his invitation.

    Parent
    I'm not criticizing Obama (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    he was being a statesman

    It's the worst part.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 06:56:41 PM EST
    bless his heart thinks he will win by being the bigger person or the adult in the room. That should have long ago gone in the trash.

    Parent
    So the Carter (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 06:56:03 PM EST
    family did not invite him but he showed up anyway? That is so typical of Trump not going where he is wanted.

    Melania looked like death warmed over. But we all know she hates the white house and doesn't plan to live there.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 09, 2025 at 08:30:30 PM EST
    if I was confusing. What I intended was my hope was that the Carter family would not have invited Trump. (assuming the invitees were made by the Carter's.)

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 08:11:08 AM EST
    thing after you commented I watched the segment with Trump coming in. Really nobody wanted anything to do with Trump, W, the Clintons snubbed him.

    I have a dream where they all show up at the inauguration and laugh at him the whole time. Trump will literally melt down right there on the stage.

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 08:11:47 AM EST
    read that Michelle Obama did not go because she would have been the one to sit beside Trump. I guess she didn't want to be sexually assaulted.

    Parent
    Judge sentences Trump... (none / 0) (#47)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    to nothing.

    Sentenced. (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    to an unconditional discharge---no jail, no fines, no probation, but cementing his status as a convicted felon.

    Some consolation in knowing Trump has found performative anger with familiar claims of hoax to be necessary and vows to appeal. And, more fundamentally, it appears that without this sentencing, the Supreme Court would have not denied Trump's application for a stay of sentencing today.  (It is likely that Roberts  and Coney Barrett would have joined Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in granting the stay).

    One of the two reasons for the majority's denial of a stay was ..."the burden of sentencing imposed on the President-elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing"

    The idea that no man is above the law is just that, an idea. However, we need to take what we can and refer to Trump as the "Felon President"--even though he and most of his MAGAts may wear it as a badge of honor.


    Parent

    Well I'm glad that you can find some (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    consolation here.  But to me it just looks like Trump gets a free pass to walk from the Court House to the White House.  The "Felon President" will wear that title like a medal of honor and cash in on it for fund raising.  One thing, he did expose the decrepitude of the American judicial system for all to see.    Bitter? You bet.

    Parent
    The injustice (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    merits embitterment.  In addition to the conviction by a jury of 34 felony counts, his contemptuous behavior in Court and out,  gets a penalty pass owing to anti-democratic Court rulings.  

    Parent
    It Was a Failure of the Political not the Judicial (none / 0) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    System. This doesn't compare, say, to OJ Simpson beating a murder rap as far being a perversion of criminal justice.  How we were given the choice between Trump and Harris in November bothers me much more.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    I get they have to be civil but the Bushs seemed appropriately cool.

    Captain, I deleted my comment (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 05:51:20 PM EST
    about the kiss-fest. Turns out it was from Trump's first inauguration. Makes much more sense now.

    Parent
    I'm going to put this here (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 04:57:36 PM EST
    Instead of going all the way down to the open
    Hopefully ok

    AMERICAN PRIMEVAL

    very good. Just dropped on Netflix

    I'm stuck inside because of the blizzard.  We ended up getting about 10 inches instead of 3-6.

    But it's ok cause I been streaming this all day.

    it is the best TV I've seen in a while

    Some real no bullsh!t American History

    Slate (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 05:26:15 PM EST
    But he was firm: (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 13, 2025 at 06:45:16 PM EST
     Greenlanders did not want to become Americans

    (Who would?)

    LINK

    An in invasive plant (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 17, 2025 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    It's cousin (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 18, 2025 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    lives in our dining room.

    Parent
    Please delete that (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 18, 2025 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    apostrophe. I know better than that.

    Parent