The Frankish Reich

Oh, so fictional US President Martin Sheen did it first! And a number of other sitcom has-been supported him. Well obviously that was just as bad as Trump, Giuliani and Co. actually trying it in real life.

In other words: nice retort, Jay Bratt!

Dan Bongino: shun (i.e., ignore) them, but mock them (i.e., pay attention to them) at the same time. (And make a good living obsessing over them) Now where have I heard that before?

And the headline is misleading because ... what? It reads "Says Gaza Defense."

Small things, but things that matter to a lot of consumers. And by consumers I mean "voters."

Of course there was. All the Trumpist tweeters started using it all at once. Just like our obedient little lambs all shifted from "socialist" or "leftist" or whatever to "communist" overnight. It's their own kind of beta testing, but it's so insular that it never gains traction outside of their tight little circle.

MSM nails it on Musk and his 180 (now 360) on affordable Teslas. https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-jumps-musks-promise-more-affordable-cars-eases-growth-fears-2024-04-24/ Recall that Musk called the original Reuters story false. The markets, however, understood that it was true. So now Musk has gone back to saying his focus is on building an affordable EV. Check back on the threads where Reuters is called fake news and Musk's self-serving statements are considered the Bible truth. So says the fool who votes for the guy who calls the National Enquirer "credible."

Except that's not my point. My point is that the so-called mainstream media isn't perfect. Sometimes they repeat what campaigns feed them. Sometimes they fail to do their own investigations and fact-checking before they report an allegation. The reports on the Steele Dossier are an example. But that's different than actually making stuff up out of whole cloth at the urging of a particular candidate. That's how this ridiculous "Ted Cruz's father was close to Oswald" story started. And obviously knowing that the story was made up, Trump harped on it in his campaign. And that was only possible because Trump essentially controlled what the Enquirer did.

Your "whole" life changes, Jesse? You mean, not just your life in general but your "whole" life? Like you wouldn't be a man anymore, but transmuted into a woman? If not that, well, then what exactly does "whole" add to the thought? Turnabout is fair play.

Let's go back in time. Summer 2016. Trump opines on that Leader of the Free Press, the National Enquirer: "There was a picture on the front page of the National Enquirer, which does have credibility," Trump said to a room of volunteers and staffers in Cleveland, adding that the tabloid "should be very respected." In May, Trump had said to Fox News, "You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being -- you know, shot....Right prior to his [Kennedy's] being shot, and nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don't even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it." The story Trump referenced had appeared in the National Enquirer and was immediately debunked. The Washington Post said Trump had made "a ridiculous claim." Politifact concurred, saying that the photograph was "too degraded to offer much confidence," and experts it consulted "consider Trump's claim implausible at best and ridiculous at worst." So now we know that Trump and that "credible" supermarket checkout rag were in cahoots, planting and killing stories all in service of Trump and at the expense of his competitors. Ted Cruz was incensed in 2016, but now he's ... weirdly quiet. Not a peep out of him since it was revealed at Trump's trial that the Enquirer just photoshopped Cruz's father into a photo of Oswald. The manly Senator just bends over and takes it now. Maybe he wants to be Attorney General. Cruz figured it all out in 2016: “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.” The mainstream media - and Cruz himself - nailed it at the time. It was a preposterous lie, and this time planted by Trump and his "alt media" supporters.

Wow, what a new concept! We used to call it "governing."

And they both had illegitimate children! (allegedly)

Revealed in court today to have been a total photoshopped fake story, put in the National Enquirer with the encouragement of Trump. Yes, ladies and gentlemen (and various non-binary sorts), this is your presidential nominee. For the third time.

I don’t think there is. But there is a legal requirement to not knowingly file false financial statements. If Trump has written out a personal Donald John Trump check I suppose we wouldn’t be here. But he was afraid that such a payment would come to light and ruin his electoral chances so he buried it through a falsified legal expense, using Cohen as a conduit. Look, you can argue all you like about whether it was wise or prudent or political or whatever to bring this case. I don’t think it was a good idea to bring it for various reasons. But the case is pretty compelling on the facts (yep, this is what Trump and Cohen actually did, and there is evidence that they did it at least in large part to avoid a story coming out that could damage his campaign), and reasonably well thought out with respect to the legal theory.

Yes, that is exactly what the Stare of New York is suggesting. Indeed, charging. The payment was laundered through Michael Cohen as a legal fee when it was nothing of the sort.

You need to get out more. The key point of today’s testimony: Packer (I know I’m spelling it wrong to avoid the auto censor) said Cohen discussed with him what Packer could do to help “with the election.” In short, there’s the evidence that suppressing stories was for the purpose of furthering Trump’s campaign. To spin this as favorable testimony for Trump is just ridiculous. MSM 1, Alt-Nut coverage 0.

Watch this and tell me that Josh is not the second coming of Roman Gabriel. What a talent.

To me, Allen’s closest comp is still Roman Gabriel. He was past his prime by the time I started watching football, but I’ve seen the old video. Rocket arm, huge guy, excellent foot speed, just the whole package. I hope Allen gets the championship that evaded Gabriel ….

There is a new day rising.

I doubt anyone scripted that thing about how his uncle was eaten by cannibals.

NC Bills Fan, was this you? https://heavy.com/news/max-azzarello-5-fast-facts-you-need-to-know/ The manifesto makes accusations against Peter Thiel and mentions former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as well as Trump. “That Bill Clinton was secretly on (former CIA Director) George H.W. Bush’s side, and that the Democrat vs. Republican division has been entirely manufactured ever since: Clinton is with Bush; Gore is with Bush; Trump is with Hillary, and so on,” it reads, claiming, “As it turns out, we have a secret kleptocracy: Both parties are run by financial criminals whose only goals are to divide, deceive, and bleed us dry.” The New York Post reported that left “a rambling, incoherent 2,648-word manifesto. Bears the hallmarks. Rambling. Incoherent. Angry. RIP, buddy.

It is before the Supreme Court of New York State, which despite its name is the trial level court of general jurisidiction. County courts are lower level, handling the stuff you talk about. Because it is INCONCEIVABLE that your God Who Walks The Earth could doze off during an incredibly boring court proceeding.

Ask the guy who started the "Uniparty" thread. Unless he's currently a crispy critter, that is.

Well, there really was no such thing as people here illegally at the time, since the USA was birthed in a time of open borders. So there is that ...

Good point. This is what economists would call the moral hazard problem. If the fees are capped at a low amount, we'd all love to think that someone carrying significant credit card debt would save that $25 difference and all consumers would be better off. But as you point out, that's not necessarily what happens. And a larger point: I don't like throwing these credit card fees in with Biden's general attack on "junk fees." I'm in favor of that because it ought to relate to those annoying/unjustifiable fees on things we can't opt out of - the classic $30 "resort fee" that I'm charged every night (and can't opt out of) that allows me to do ordinary things like make local telephone calls (who does that on a hotel phone anymore?) and access the hotel swimming pool. The idea is that if I can't opt out, you've got to wrap that fee into the disclosed nightly rate. That makes sense as a consumer/advertising fairness issue. Things like paying a credit card bill late are not the same thing.