438 Comments
founding

I probably should be offended to think that anyone would suspect me of citing any of those disgraces to their bar admissions, but I have no problem with your decision. If you only want to read the Bulwark for your information, that is truly your decision.

Expand full comment

sorry but does not help that CNN has a right wing owner that has hamstrung all hosts except honourable and rich Anderson Cooper. Sunday featured all repubs and lol joe Manchin. Media is owned by oligarchs.

Expand full comment

look at corruption in North Carolina or TX or Missouri or Arkansas. Something is fishy and third party is a GOP funded danger. The NC defection today is horrifying

Expand full comment

Serious question: will this be Daniel Kelly's swan song, or will he reappear on state supreme court ballots from now until his sad demise? A judicial branch Lyndon LaRouche?

Expand full comment

finally, a rational look at this mess; i was this close to canceling my subscription after reading the other nonsense published today

Expand full comment

RE: "He is the only man in American presidential history who could pay off two porn stars..."

I don't want to be hyper-technical here... but I feel I have to raise an issue about calling Ms. McDougal a "porn star." While she is the 1998 Playmate of the Year, she really isn't a "porn" star, but the usual definitions of what qualifies as "pornography."

Expand full comment

There's probably no constitutional way to criminalize lying to or deceiving voters per se. Falsifying records to conceal in kind campaign contributions (or tax evasions) doesn't really capture the essence of what Trump & Co. were doing, even if judges allow charges to that specific effect. That's the gap between the words of the "trivial" indictment and the really serious philosophical (but evidently not legal) gravamen of the charges. Maybe Bragg will still be permitted to develop the whole *gestalt* of the case, but one can only hope it won't be lost amid the technicalities.

Expand full comment

Completely off topic, but is there really not a way to "ignore" a commenter in this system?

Expand full comment

I doubt it. But you know? There's always going to be a few onions.

Expand full comment

The big story is Wisconsin and the next story with longest ramifications is Finland. I never believed Finland would join NATO until Ukraine. Can we relegate NATO members who do act in a NATO fashion? Is anyone watching China in the other Americas?

Expand full comment

And in Breaking News: "The New York Times Rupert Murdoch and other Fox Corp executives can be forced to testify in the Dominion defamation trial, a judge said." And ditto Tucker and Sean. Can they take the 5th in a civil case?

Expand full comment

Probably not. You can only refuse to answer a question under oath, if by answering you will face criminal prosecution..... But if you do refuse to answer in a civil trial, for the purpose of that trial, everyone is going to assume you're a pig faced lying sack.

Expand full comment

Tucker and Sean have already shown they are. I hope Dominion destroys them.

Expand full comment

If I had to bet?

Lou Dobbs is already gone... but I think Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham will probably survive. What their shows will ultimately be, I don't know...

But I think neither "Judge" Jeanine Pirro nor Maria Bartiromo are going to make it through this.

Pirro, in particular (demon rat that she is), certainly deserves to go the way of all angels....

Expand full comment
Apr 5, 2023·edited Apr 5, 2023

re: Wisconsin Supreme Court Election:

It is unfortunate but the PseudoRepubs, PseudoCons and RINOs in the state legislature have a supermajority (just won in Tuesday's election with the election of Dan Knodl) and intend to abuse it dramatically. They have already announced that they intend to impeach Janet Protasiewicz, the non-MAGA candidate who trounced their preferred candidate by 10 points. Several news sources have been reporting this for days, and the possibility was floated even before the election was held.

"Knodl has already floated the idea of impeaching Protasiewicz. *Last week*, he said he would “certainly consider” launching impeachment proceedings against her." https://newrepublic.com/post/171630/wisconsin-republicans-talking-impeach-liberal-judge-protasiewicz

Knodl was just elected yesterday (Tuesday) but his views were already on the record. Just like their Dear Leader, the Tangerine Tyrant, all these "legislators" - and I use the term very loosely - are more concerned with imposing their draconian views on everyone rather than working for the good of all of their constituents. (In Magick there is a common expression: "As above, so below," and these WI state lawmakers are proving this by their aping of the House of Representatives.)

Politics used to be the art of compromise, now it has become the art of compulsion instead.

fnord

Expand full comment

Thank you Charlie for putting the crimes of which Trump was yesterday charged in what you characterize as a “ useful context.” Yours is the most succinct, understandable and lucid description of these that I have so far encountered. I believe that your and your fellow “never Trumper” ex or dissenting Republicans are our best chance for ridding the Republic of this odious MAGA-magician who has captivated so many in our society.

Expand full comment

Re: "The Non-Trivial Crimes of Donald J. Trump":

I don't understand David Frum's, a staff writer at The Atlantic, comments today in his peace, "Don’t Indict Trump With This." I gather that he is concerned that going after DJT now for one of his least aggregious offense will backfire. I whole heartily disagree. Here's why, in no particular order:

1. There's apparently irrefutable evidence of THIS crime, so why not fire the first salvo here? It's almost a sure bet to secure a guilty. If this case fails, then what chance do the more nuanced have?

2. It puts DJT already on the defensive, from which he may plea to the forthcoming cases brought against him, thus saving tax dollars and a lot of wasted time.

3. He did it, so why not prosecute the multitude of his legal transgressions in this case?

4. It would be hypocritical to not prosecute this but bring other cases.

5. It's time to put a sock in the angry Republican contingency's mouthing that the law doesn't matter when you don't like it. That's what the legislature is for. Protest that institution.

Expand full comment

Add:

6. This indictment can be looked upon as just the first pebble in a soon-to-be avalanche of indictments being handed down.

fnord

Expand full comment

Wisconsin elections have recently been decided by razor-thin margins, while off year and non-November elections tend to be dominated by conservative activists. In this election, Republicans got their asses kicked by 10 points for one reason- abortion.

Expand full comment

Re: "The Non-Trivial Crimes of Donald J. Trump"

DJT f*ucked SD, then she f*cked him good! It was certainly not the gold-digging, mail-order, stone-faced, no-self-worth Melania that did the deed, though she is on the accounts payable books for "Ho' Services Rendered."

Expand full comment
founding
Apr 5, 2023·edited Apr 5, 2023

Chris Jansing referred to Trump as the "Orange Albatross" on her show today. That pretty much nails it.

Expand full comment