Sure the Roberts Court is partisan, I thought. But there's a threshold level belief in the rule of law. My guiding heuristic has been that the Roberts Court, especially in its post-2017 iteration is thoroughly corrupt and will generally do whatever is in the interests of the GOP so long as it doesn't put too big a dent in the Court's own perceived legitimacy and elite social standing.

Everything comes into conceptual alignment if we understand the Court's corruption: corrupt in its construction, corrupt in its jurisprudence, venally corrupt as well, though that is the least of its problems. No. We don't want to shore up faith in a corrupt institution.

That's the challenge in front of us. It sucks. But things become more clear cut once we take the plunge and accept that fact. Swallow it whole.

The justice was especially concerned with the idea that former presidents would be targeted for political prosecution by their rivals. When the government's lawyer, Michael Dreeben, argued that prosecutors don't always get grand juries to agree to indictments, Alito responded, "Every once in a while there's an eclipse too."

The risk of such prosecutions poses the biggest threat, Alito suggested: "If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

As Dreeben correctly responded, that is the literal inversion of the Jan. 6 case, which involves a defeated former president who, after pursuing several legal avenues to challenge the outcome and losing all of them, chose very clearly not to "go off into a peaceful retirement," but rather tried to overturn the election by illegal and unconstitutional means that resulted in a violent attack on Congress.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was also perplexed by Alito's upside-down hypothetical, which actively avoided the facts of the case before the court. "A stable democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials, correct?" she asked, adding that the crimes Trump is charged with committing "are the antithesis of democracy" and that his immunity argument cast doubt on the principle "that no man is above the law, either in his official or private acts."

The question the SCOTUS was engaged to answer today was whether a President has "absolute immunity" for any and all acts undertaken while in office. Now that has morphed into the non-asked argument as to whether criminal laws need to specifically include the President as prosecutable if charged with violations of them.

It is clear as day that the right wing is actively delegitimizing historical constitutional checks and balances, heretofore thought to apply to every single American equally without fault or favor in support of the most corrupt, anti-liberal (small L), criminal President to ever sully the White House and Oval Office. Trump is everything our Founders tried to anticipate and created various means to thwart and remove from public service, understanding centuries ago that a popular demagogic leader could emerge and attempt to consolidate authoritarian power not unlike the King they fought a war of independence to escape from.

I just found this about the current relationship between the Speaker and Donald Trump:

Aren't the PGA and LIV owned by the same entity now?

No. The PIF is in negotiations to become a billion dollar investor in the PGA Tour, but even then they won't own it nor control it. This new announced PGA Tour players' deal was made possible by the $1.5 billion investment from the Strategic Sports Group, a non-Saudi entity.

If Johnson has "seen the light" or "turned over a new leaf," I'll reserve my judgement until I see if this about-face is a genuine separation from Trump or a one-off.

That isn't what the evidence shows actually happened. Johnson came to understand the need to fund Ukraine as an existential national security issue, where as Speaker he really didn't have a choice NOT to put the nation's (and the free world's) interests ahead of the MAGA hardliners including Trump.

Johnson just went to Mar-a-Lago the weekend before last so there was no need for Trump to telegraph his messages, he gave them to him personally. Can you think of a single time Trump hasn't spoken his mind to anyone behind closed doors if something is important to him? He blabs stream of consciousness utterances to non-relevant individuals in his incessant quest to be important or to simply show off.

And let's not forget, Johnson also brought the government budget bill to the floor in opposition of the MAGAts and Trump who wanted to see the government shut down, so this is already more than a simple one off. I don't see any need to wait to assess Johnson in this regards. He simply sees and understands a much larger picture in a much more complicated world than the simpleton MAGAts who're only trying to drive their own narratives and unpopular policies based on their nihlistic zero sum politics. Let me put it this way - I don't see Johnson as a loyal partner in the MAGA agenda when said agenda runs counter to what he'd do if he were President in that same moment. And that doesn't mean he's now hostile to MAGA, it simply means he's learned as Speaker the real master he must serve is the US Constitution and the good of this nation especially on existential issues that ultimately transcend insolar partisan politics.

So, congratulations to Speaker Johnson for his skill in convincing Trump that the popular aid package for Ukraine would translate into votes for Trump into 2024.

Where are you seeing this reported? I haven't seen a single word about Johnson trying to convince Trump of anything. The only thing I've seen is that Johnson ignored Trump and MAGA because he's Number 2 in line for the presidency and realized that national security trumps MAGA politics. And his son is entering the Naval Academy and allowing Putin to defeat Ukraine would most certainly lead to further European conflicts that would involve placing American troops in harm's way.

There was an article (that I can't locate right this moment) that listed all the things that Trump has demanded his GOP allies do in Congress that haven't been done without any direct repercussions befalling the members. If anything, Johnson's stewardship of the Ukraine aid has shown that MAGAts do not have the power that they think they do in Congress.

I found the passage:

Wonder if Nike would attempt to make Caitlin's shoes in men's sizes, or just stick to women's sizes?

Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, and CIA Director William J. Burns gave Johnson a dire presentation, warning that Ukraine would lose the war without immediate U.S. support. Sullivan briefed Johnson on exactly when Ukraine might run out of weapons, laying out in detail when it would no longer have a single artillery shell or air defense interceptor.

McConnell, Biden, Schumer and Jeffries all stressed the historic importance of the moment, according to a second senior administration official. After the meeting, Biden pulled Johnson aside for a further one-on-one conversation, the official said.

As Johnson strategized, he recognized that different parts of the bill would prompt different defections: Many Republicans would oppose Ukraine aid, while dozens of Democrats could withhold their votes because of military aid to Israel. And many Republican lawmakers had also long demanded the issues be separated.

That's how he landed on the strategy of passing four separate bills: for Ukraine arms, Israel aid, Indo-Pacific funding and other provisions. Each mini-bill would spur defections, but not enough to sink any one of them.

The gambit worked; the four bills passed the House and were then stitched back together and sent to the Senate.

It took months, but finally Speaker Johnson found a way to rise above the cries from party allies and their criminally-indicted presidential nominee, wanting to see US backing for Ukraine collapse, easing Putin's consolidation of his invasion's goal of bringing Ukraine to heel.

While many point to various polling still showing Trump in the lead across crucial swing states, these same people are ignoring that the combination of actual governing - which ignores the GOP's pet hair-on-fire issues - and the increasing daily portrayals of Donald Trump facing civil charges, lawsuits, and criminal indictments throughout multiple courts in multiple states. actually shows a GOP hurtling towards what very well could be a terminal entropy.

The first group includes 36 players receiving $750 million in equity based on the last five years of play. "Career Points" will be awarded based on how many years a player has been a Tour member, how many times they earned a spot in the Tour Championship and how many times they have won, with extra points awarded for high-profile victories like the majors, The Players Championship and the FedExCup.

Group 2's share of the initial equity will be much smaller ($75 million) and will be granted to 64 players. The group is considered "steady performers and up-and-comers" and will be based on FedExCup points earned over the last three years.

Equity to Group 3 will be $30 million going to 57 players based on career earnings and how many times a player finished inside the top 125 in FedExCup points.

The final group will include "past legends," like Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson, with $75 million going to 36 players based on the "Career Points" formula. Those grants will only be awarded to "past legends" that are living.

The Telegraph reported Wednesday that Woods will receive up to $100 million in equity as part of the newly created for-profit PGA Tour Enterprises, with McIlroy getting about half that amount. Other notable payouts include $30 million each for Jordan Spieth and Justin Thomas.

To receive the money, players would have to continue to remain loyal to the PGA Tour, with the funds vesting over the next eight years, according to The Telegraph. And going forward, the PGA Tour plans to award $100 million per year to the players.

I also think that the lack of access to these payments for LIV players who may want to return to the PGA Tour creates the punishment wanted by those who turned down LIV's lucre to remain on the globe's leading golf tour.

As a legal matter, it's relevant that ------ and his former publication were focused on Trump's electoral needs - as opposed to Trump's family and/or personal reputation - when it worked with Michael Cohen, the candidate's then-fixer, on the Enquirer's campaign-season efforts.

"The CEO of the National Enquirer is an individual named David ------," Cruz said at a [2016] campaign event. "Well, David is good friends with Donald Trump. In fact, the National Enquirer has endorsed Donald Trump, has said he must be president." The senator lamented that his young daughters would someday "read these lies, these attacks that Donald and his henchmen, that his buddies at the National Enquirer spread" about their father.

After the tabloid went after Cruz's father, and Trump seized on the story, the senator also told reporters that the future president was a "pathological liar," adding in reference to Trump, "He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth."

Trying to make what was at worst a misdemeanor and to try and spin it into a felony I offer to get around the statute of limitations is Banana Republic crap.

Only if you ignore the depth of actions taken by ------ and the National Enquirer which intentionally placed false stories about Trump's GOP opponents so that he could defeat them and gain the party's nomination. Once you introduce the money/payoff factor, the conspiracy to affect the election becomes the underlying crime that elevates the travesty into a felony as it should be. Trump and ------ defrauded and deceived the American voters in two ways. First, they conspired to print knowingly false information that damaged multiple GOP candidates' campaigns at the exact moment their polling threatened Trump's nomination. And second, they conspired to buy the silence of multiple women willing to let the public know that Donald had sexual relations with them while he was married to Melania, keeping damaging character information from the voting public everyone readily understands could have fatally damaged his candidacy, denying him the White House.

Trump is under 88 indictments. No one charged with that level of criminal activity deserves any benefit of the doubt as to their innate criminal nature and total lack of respect for laws and regulations. Trump has never claimed that he's actually innocent of any of these charges outside of lying that he didn't have sexual relations with either McDougal nor Daniels. The charges aren't banana republic-like, Trump's denigration and total disdain in disrespecting public servants (and their family members) doing their jobs and trying to give him fair trials with impartial juries is the most dictatorial, tyrannical act any defendant has ever played when faced with accountability for their own actions.

Why didn't Dems pass it in the Senate? They have a majority and I don't recall it being filibustered.

#6 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Maybe because the bill had zero Democratic support in the House and Senate, because Republicans refuse to negotiate or compromise with Democrats. Do Republicans pass bills that Democrats author that have zero GOP support?

However, that was not the case with the bill authored and negotiated by Republican Senator James Lankford and supported by Majority Leader McConnell.

In January, Sen. Lindsey Graham urged his GOP colleagues not to look a gift horse in the mouth. "To those who think that if President Trump wins, which I hope he does, that we can get a better deal - you won't," the South Carolina Republican told reporters. He added, "To my Republican friends: To get this kind of border security without granting a pathway to citizenship is really unheard of. ... So to my Republican colleagues, this is a historic moment to reform the border."

The radicals keeping Republicans from taking incremental steps to address the problem on their own terms because they aren't getting 100% of their demands simply isn't how divided government works. And Trump isn't interested in seeing the border issues bipartisanly addressed before this fall's election, yet again placing his own myopic interests before those of the American people and immigrants, both seeking better management of this ongoing problem.

Let's not forget, the immigration and border reforms that Democrats were prepared to accept were quite conservative, and much further to the right than any of the deals Democrats embraced throughout the Bush, Obama, and Trump eras.

In January, Sen. Lindsey Graham urged his GOP colleagues not to look a gift horse in the mouth. "To those who think that if President Trump wins, which I hope he does, that we can get a better deal - you won't," the South Carolina Republican told reporters. He added, "To my Republican friends: To get this kind of border security without granting a pathway to citizenship is really unheard of. ... So to my Republican colleagues, this is a historic moment to reform the border."

Republicans instead followed Trump's instructions and killed the bipartisan agreement.

As a result, the GOP ended up with none of what it wanted on border policy, even as Democratic leaders got all of what they wanted on security aid.

One of the reasons the right sees US policy move in a more progressive direction is their own inability to accept less than 100% of what their most extreme members insist upon. Thank goodness the far right continues to reject unprecedented rightward compromises for the sake of political purity talking points, which continually forces the realist Republicans to join with Democrats in passing vital legislation closer to what the Dems wanted all along.

This ---- reads like comedy.

And you READ like ----. The quotes are from the FBI INTERVIEW that was publicly released by the Court with the names REDACTED because the authorities don't want Trump disparaging or threatening the person. You do realize that lying to the FBI is a felony, right? The FBI KNOWS WHO THE PERSON IS and this same person will give testimony in the upcoming trial.

A summary of the associate's interview with federal agents was among nearly 400 pages of investigative records that were unsealed on Monday by the judge overseeing Mr. Trump's classified documents case. The associate's identity - in the unsealed records labeled as Person 16 - was redacted from the summary.

Biden colluded with the National Archives and the FBI to concoct a case against the former president.

You're a liar. Biden has had no direct or indirect contact with the DOJ about any of the cases involving Trump. He's never made a single comment regarding Trump cases other than to say everything being done is being done by the DOJ in the pursuit of following the law.

How can any sentient person get on this blog and argue that Donald Trump deserves the benefit of any doubt as he did direct his Attorney General to stop the SDNY's investigation of the hush money matter as told by its Trump-picked USA who was fired by Barr for refusing to drop said case altogether? Not to mention his incessant threats of having "his DOJ" prosecute and jail his political opponents or fact witnesses against him in his myriad criminal indictments, publicly smearing court personnel whom evidently can't have their own private lives (nor can their families) if they've ever criticized Trump over anything?

88 federal indictments cannot be explained away as frivolous or political. Trump is a career criminal whose past is finally catching up to him in his present and it scares him to death because he no longer lords over the federal justice system nor the non-right wing media like he did while President.

Clark received offers of $16 million over four years from Under Armour and $6 million over four years from Adidas, with both including a signature shoe, according to the WSJ.

Her marketability is enhanced by her polished performances in media settings, and her surprise appearance on "Saturday Night Live" two weeks ago was widely acclaimed and exposed her to an even wider audience.

The reported eight-year contract with Nike shows the sportswear giant's commitment. At 22, Clark could play well over a decade in the WNBA and she could be on the U.S. roster for the Olympics in Paris this year, in Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane, Australia, in 2032.

I did read somewhere that all four bills were going to be combined when they went to the Senate.

In the Senate, but not the House which is what I've always been referring to>

And to be clear, some Democrats voted for Ukraine aid and voted against the Israeli/Palestinian package. So, no, all the funding was not "rolled into" the Ukraine bill. All of the bills stood or sunk on their own merit, wholly independent from each other.

#32

Dude, YOU'RE WRONG. The votes were separate by design. Many GOP members voted for Israeli aid and against aid for Ukraine. Being for one didn't mean you had to be for the other. In Johnson's reoriented mind, all of the votes were directly related to his responsibility to protect America's defense and interest as the now 2nd in line of succession.

Stop while you're behind. You don't know what you're talking about.

A summary of the associate's interview with federal agents was among nearly 400 pages of investigative records that were unsealed on Monday by the judge overseeing Mr. Trump's classified documents case. The associate's identity - in the unsealed records labeled as Person 16 - was redacted from the summary.

Person 16 also suggested that some of Mr. Trump's children had been enlisted in the task of persuading him to return the presidential records to the archives. The person recounted to the F.B.I. that one of the children was told: "There are issues with the boxes. They belong to the government. Talk to your dad about giving them back. It's not worth the aggravation."

This is the case that unmistakably shows Trumps disdain for the law and his lifelong propensity of ignoring laws, rules and regulations which keep him from doing what he wants.

#30

No, it wasn't. There were 3 separate bills: One for Ukraine, one for Israel and Gaza, and one for the Indo-Pacific.

Your assertion is wrong.

#28

I think this article clearly states the most probable reasons for Johnson coming to the decision of bucking the Putinites from his Freedom Caucus and Trump's public statements critical of US aid to Ukraine, again insinuating Europe hasn't done enough.

I think the most relevatory part of this story was the fact that Johnson himself - prior to his lightning ascension to Speaker - had never met the President; never been in a high level intelligence briefing; never even met the other Congressional leaders from either party; and didn't know the truth that it's Russia who is persecuting Ukrainian Christians, not the other way around being propagated in the Russian disinformation being touted by MTG and other Putinites dominating the current GOP discourse.

Now, it's obvious that the polling of Republicans on Ukraine added the final steel to his spine, but to me, I think the two most important reasons he finally did what he did is because 1) He had the ephiphany as SPOH his role as 2nd in the line of succession comes with the caveat he has to place the entire nation's wellbeing as his guiding star, not simply the GOP or even a smaller subset thereof; and 2) His son is about to enter the Naval Academy, and if Ukraine fails in its quest to evict Russia from its lands, Russia will most certainly start other hot conflicts in the region that stand a very high probability of drawing US forces into a hot war as a part of NATO's defense.

IOW, some issues simply transcend partisan politics, especially issues regarding national security and world order. With all of Johnson's most important boxes checked (religion, personal interest, favored polling, national security, and global order) he did what any national leader should do given similar circumstances.

#24

I thing you're paragraph is related to remarks Saturday while still in the Capitol Building. Mine was from Sunday, and as yet I've seen no walkback or denial of the intentions she unambiguously stated.

Now that he did, she's going to be "responsible" and "listen to her constituents".

I don't know what tea leaves you're reading, but the opposite appears to be the truth.