The Laptop

With all the crises that Republicans have been screaming about that need solving, like inflation, the border, Social Security shortfall, crime, and imaginary election fraud, now that they're charge of the House of Representatives they'll be concentrating on big issues like investigating the January 6 Committee, impeaching Joe Biden and, of course, Hunter Biden's laptop. 

Republicans, going all the way back to the Clinton administration have attempted to get their way with pointless investigations, while their own people have been engaged in the real corruption, pontificating about "family values" while nominating...Donald Trump. 

Hunter Biden is without a doubt a serial screwup. He has gotten lucrative jobs by trading on his father's name, gotten himself thrown out of the military for drug use, and made a long string bad decisions. But, in true Republican fashion, since they have fantasized that President Biden was involved corruptly in his son's bad decisions it must be so. No evidence needed. 

There is no doubt that Hunter Biden had a laptop that he once abandoned at a computer repaid shop in Delaware. There also appears to be videos on it that make Hunter look pretty bad. It's also indisputable that he's under investigation for various crimes including tax fraud. Fine, if he's guilty I would hope he's held accountable for any hypothetical crimes. 

But...why does anyone care?

With all the serious issues to be addressed, this what the Republicans are going to focus on?

The clown show is open for business.
 

Still a Murderer

 

After seeing Kyle Rittenhouse once again on social media attempting to justify himself, I thought I'd revisit this post from July, with a few additions:

Kyle Rittenhouse was on trial for murder. He killed two people and seriously wounded a third. 

According to trial testimony, the first person that Rittenhouse killed was Joseph Rosenbaum. I've heard different versions of what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, and various descriptions of Rosenbaum as a troublemaker. But trial testimony established that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times after Rosenbaum lunged at him. Multiple witnesses established that Rosenbaum was harassing, not only Rittenhouse, but other counter protestors as well. Video shows Rosenbaum chasing after Rittenhouse and throwing what appears to be a plastic bag at him. There is no credible allegation that Rosenbaum was armed. The defense claims, and video footage confirms, that a shot was heard just before Rittenhouse turned and fired at Rosenbaum, who was still unarmed. No one, not even the defense, was claiming that Rosenbaum fired the shot. I think that it's reasonable to conclude that Rittenhouse was terrified that he was going to get beaten up by Rosenbaum and possibly others. It's abundantly clear that in his mind he connected the gunshot that he heard with Rosenbaum chasing him, freaked out and fired his weapon. Video appears to show Rosenbaum reaching for the barrel of the weapon, or perhaps lunging at Rittenhouse. What would you do if a terrified youngster with an AR-15 pointed his gun at you? It clear to me from the testimony given at the trial that it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life - not because an actual threat to his life existed, but because in his fantasy of protecting property from rampaging hordes and in a moment of irrational terror that existed only in his head  and apart from the reality of the situation, he panicked and killed someone. And fired, not once, in order to drive off someone who he fantasized was trying to kill him, but four times as Rosenbaum fell. 

The jury decided, as the defense claims, that Rittenhouse fired in self defense. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Wisconsin law, although I am reasonably sure they don't have a version of a "Stand Your Ground" statute, so it's wasn't a sure thing either way. But is it self defense if you purposely put yourself in a position to provoke people to anger by walking around with a loaded weapon that you are prepared to use against people who are damaging property? Emotions were running hot in Kenosha and he inserted himself right into the middle of it. And "inserted" is the right word. This wasn't his city, it wasn't even his state. He got his mother to drive him across state lines and pick up his illegally obtained weapon because he was looking for trouble. And he found it. Trouble didn't find him. He actively sought out a dangerous situation and shot an unarmed man who he thought endangered him. 

Something that wasn't brought up in the trial, but is referred to repeatedly by Rittenhouse supporters and enablers, was that Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile. This is true. When he was 19 he was accused of molesting several young boys and was convicted and spent time in prison for it. This certainly makes Rosenbaum a terrible person - at least it indicates that he was a terrible person when he was 19, roughly 18 years before he was killed. Rittenhouse stans insist that killing Rosenbaum was somehow a public service given his past. But as much as we may feel that pedophiles are the worst of the worst and deserve to die, (1) Rittenhouse had no knowledge of Rosenbaum's record, (2) He'd served his time and (3) the law frowns on vigilantism, no matter how horrific the crime. This is what we in the piscine metaphor game call a red herring. While in this case, the target really was a pedophile, bringing this up is right in line with the right wing trying to paint anyone who opposes them as a pedophile. But in this case it's totally irrelevant and intended to justify Rittenhouse's actions over and above the tissue-thin self defense claim. 

Regarding Rittenhouse's murder of Rosenbaum, he was found not guilty because the statutes allowed a claim of self defense even when there wasn't anything to defend oneself from other than in the supposed defender's mind. 

Let's move on to the murder of Anthony Huber. 

Much is made by Second Amendment extremists of the "good guy with a gun" as a preventive to "bad guy with a gun" violence. (Of course they are not dissuaded by statistics showing that this hardly ever happens) In their minds armed citizens should be able to stop a mass shooter in the early stages, or even before the shooting starts. Anthony Huber, as well as several others, had just seen Rittenhouse kill someone. Even though he was armed only with a skateboard, he attempted to subdue the killer before he could kill again. The bare facts of this second killing are not really in dispute. Huber attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard in order to detain him. If Rittenhouse had been killed by the skateboard, I presume that Huber could have successfully used the "feared for his life" defense. After all, Rittenhouse, who had just inarguably killed someone, still was armed with a deadly weapon, was walking away. Wouldn't, in other circumstances, someone like Huber be lauded as a hero? Instead, Rittenhouse was able to get off a shot and Huber was killed; Rittenhouse again claimed to fear for his life as a defense against someone who attempted to disarm and detain him. Team Rittenhouse wants us to view this second killing in a vacuum: someone was attacking him and he defended himself. Since he says, one again, that he feared for his life, he's let off again. But you can't divorce Huber's killing from the context of Rosenbaum's killing. This wasn't a random, unprovoked attack by a mad skateboarder, but a reaction to his murder of Rosenbaum. 

As in the case of Rosenbaum, the Rittenhouse cheerleaders attempted to smear Huber, but with less success. Huber was accused of domestic abuse and sexual assault, however this was inaccurate. He had been charged with several felonies springing from a dispute with several family members, as well as misdemeanors for disorderly conduct and possession of drug paraphernalia. No allegations or charges of sexual assault were included in his record. Unlike Rosenbaum his run-ins with the law were minor, but like Rosenbaum, they were completely irrelevant. 

We finally get to Gaige Grosskreutz, the only one of Rittenhouse's three victims to survive and the only one who was armed. Grosskreutz was at the protests as a medic, but unlike Rittenhouse he (1) had actual training as an EMT and (2) had actively treated around a dozen people for pepper spray and rubber bullet impacts. He was armed and had a license to carry a weapon. Grosskreutz ran toward the sound of gunfire, the gunfire that killed Rosenbaum. He saw Rittenhouse kill Huber and had drawn his gun. Initially he had raised his hands but when he saw Rittenhouse "rerack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber" he ran toward Rittenhouse "to prevent himself from being shot", claiming to have no intention of actually shooting him, but pointing his pistol in Rittenhouse's direction nonetheless. It's obvious that Grosskreutz didn't intend to shoot Rittenhouse...because he didn't , even though he had the opportunity. If he had shot and killed Rittenhouse, surely he would have been able to claim that he feared for his life and been acquitted. Like the murder of Huber, friends of Rittenhouse want to take this shooting out of context and present it as just an incident of him defending himself from someone pointing a gun at him. But the context is supremely important. Grosskreutz would not have been in the position that he was in if two murders had not jus occurred. Rittenhouse wouldn't be in that position if he hadn't just murdered two people. 

The now tiresome accusation of criminality rears its head again. Grosskreutz, while having several misdemeanors on his record was not a felon and was legally able to go armed. 

Rittenhouse got off. In my opinion it was overly broad self defense statutes that allowed his claim of self defense to stand. They're not much different in Wisconsin than anywhere else, but for the most part a claim that someone "feared for their life" is taken at face value. In the case of the first person that he shot, Rittenhouse claimed he was afraid that he would be killed by his own gun, that he testified that Rosenbaum was trying to take from him. In the case of his murder of Huber, he was apparently deathly afraid of a skateboard. He seemed to be completely unaware that he was being "attacked" because he had just KILLED SOMEONE! 

After the acquittal, instead of breathing a sigh of relief that he wouldn't be going to prison, he has become the darling of the gun lovers in the NRA and the Republican Party, spouting pro-gun rhetoric via his Twitter account and encouraging his supporters to justify his murder and maiming spree by pointing out the arrest history of his victims. 

The NRA crowd and its hangers-on don't see the inherent problem with this no-questions-asked "feared for my life" defense. Cops have been using it for as long as there have been cops, but now you start to see videos of aggressive, armed individuals screaming "I feel threatened" at people armed only with words. I'm not advocating unprovoked violence, but wouldn't a natural extension of this belief be for protestors to just proactively shoot any right wing counter-protester? 

After the Rittenhouse verdict, I'd certainly fear for my life if I saw any of those armed assholes at a protest.

The Insurrectionist

[Since I originally posted this, I have learned that "insurrection" has a narrow legal definition, as does "sedition" and "seditious conspiracy". None of the invaders of the Capitol on January 6 were charged with insurrection, but many were charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy, hence "insurrectionist" is inaccurate and "seditious conspirator" is the more accurate label]

Do I think Donald Trump, aka "Losin' Don", will ever see one day in prison, or even be subject to significant civil penalties? [updated May 28, 2023 to note that he was recently held liable for defamation and order to pay $5,000,000]

No. 

Do I think he should because he's guilty as Hell?

Yes, I do. 

One of Trump's impeachments was over his incitement of the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2020. His supporters point to one line in his speech in Washington, D.C. on that day: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". There are other references to peacefully protesting and being the party of law and order. But does that exonerate him from any blame? 

Throughout his speech on January 6, 2020 Trump rehashed his lies that the election was stolen and that day's Congressional certification of the electoral votes was the last chance to make things right. He had supporters in Congress who would vote against accepting the electoral votes of states that had went to Joe Biden in close contests. He was pressuring Vice President Pence to refuse to accept the results. And now, on the last supposedly legal opportunity to overturn the election results he faced a crowd of thousands of true believers. The core of those who really believed the lies that their cult leader was feeding them and were prepared to act on his words. 

Trump was skilled at not leaving a paper trail, ensuring plausible deniability at every turn. He was the master of "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" utterances, enabling him to claim that he didn't actually issue the orders to do what his subordinates clearly understood to be orders. His defense that he didn't incite that attack on the Capitol is apparently that he didn't say the words "Now go and attack the Capitol". 

The context of incitement in this case can't even be narrowed down to what he said or didn't say on January 6. For months he had been ranting that the election had been stolen from him. His core of supporters, especially those present that day, were people who had no problem with violence. His 'wink and a nod' support of extremist groups (to the Proud Boys "Stand back and stand by") certainly communicated that he was perfectly fine with protests that got more physical than waving Trump flags and wearing red hats. He encouraged rough and even violent treatment of protesters at his rallies. After months of convincing his followers that it was the patriotic thing to do to overturn an election he encouraged them to march to the Capitol...which was not open to the public that day to make their voices heard. What did he think would happen? Maybe he didn't realize how far it would go, but it took him over three hours to call on his cult to stop their attack and go home. And even then he expressed sympathy for them and what they were doing. If he truly intended for their voices to be heard, "peacefully and patriotically", why did he allow the rampage to continue as long as he did? Trump claims that it wasn't his intention to encourage his followers to break into the Capitol, but his followers seem to think it was. He knew what affect his words would have.

Speaker McCarthy released all the security to video that day, not to the media at large, not to the Congressional Committee (that he disbanded) to investigate the events of that day, not to the Georgia prosecutor looking into Trump's culpability, but to Trump sycophants Tucker Carlson, who released portions of the footage where the seditionists weren't attacking the police, breaking windows, scaling walls or stealing items from Congressional offices. As if we hadn't already seen the videos of the violence and destruction or the calls to "hang Mike Pence" or "get Pelosi". 

He's guilty. Go get him Jack.

The Latest Election

It ain't over yet, but here's how it looks:

• Most election deniers were not elected, a notable exception was Ron DeSantis, Florida governor; Kari Lake in Arizona may still squeak by

• In all likelihood when the dust settles Republicans will have the majority in the House of Representatives

• In the Senate, Alaska, Nevada & Arizona are too close to call, but the two top vote getters in the ranked choice election are Republicans

• Nevada is tilting toward the Republican; Arizona to Senator Mark Kelly

• This leaves 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans with a runoff election in Georgia between Senator Warnock and a violent, lying, brain-damaged Hershel Walker - I predict Warnock wins in December

What does all this mean? Probably nothing legislatively for the next two years (unless the trends reverse themselves in the remaining races and the Democrats retain control of the House). There's a good chance that if they are the majority the Republicans will entertain themselves by opening investigations in Hunter Biden and anything else that their paranoid little minds dream up. Even if they gain the majority in the Senate, the Democrats still have the filibuster and Biden still has the veto, so a MAGA/right-wing agenda  isn't going to happen. (If McConnell were to eliminate the filibuster, it's unlikely that he would do it with a Democrat in the White House, since Biden could veto anything they come up with and there won't be enough to override). The biggest issue if the Republicans take over the Senate, even by 51-49, is that they can prevent President Biden from appointing any more federal judges. 

There's still a lot that's undecided, so pay attention!

 

Our Allegedly Nonpartisan Legislature

Nebraska has what's called a unicameral legislature. That means there is only one house of the legislature, as opposed to a bicameral, or two-house legislature like every other state.  You also hear the word "nonpartisan" thrown around a lot. In this context, nonpartisan means that in elections to the legislature (or simply "the unicameral") party affiliation does not appear on the ballot, nor are there formal party caucuses. But don't let that fool you, Nebraska's government is as partisan as any other state's. 

Once upon a time, party politics in Nebraska wasn't as...well...partisan as it is now. The difference in the unicameral was more about urban versus rural than it was about Republicans versus Democrats. There was a time when both Senators were Democrats and the governor was Republican. Of course our Republicans weren't the fire-breathing radicals that you get now, and Democrats were pretty conservative. They were more concerned about property tax relief, aid to public schools, tax rates and the many mundane things that governments used to be concerned about. Little by little though, Nebraska politics became more aligned with the trends being set by the national parties - demonizing their opponents and holding on to power.

I'm not going to suggest that Ricketts started it, but he certainly brought things to a head. Shortly after he was elected he loudly chastised Republican members of the unicameral for not supporting a bill that was important to him. He then, utilizing the deep pockets provided by his family's ownership of TAmeritrade, he financed primary challenges against the Republicans that he deemed not partisan enough. 

These days, though, Nebraska politics is a reflection of national partisan divides. Two years ago, Governor Ricketts, clearly sniffing the possibility of a Senate run, started mouthing MAGA talking points. He'd always been a conservative politician, but his utterances became more and more Trump-like, even though he opposed Trump's preference for governor, knowing that the MAGA base among at least the Republicans primary electorate would reward him for his remaking himself in the Trump image. Ricketts' chosen successor, Jim Pillen, pandered even more to the right-wing voters, posing in campaign ads with a rifle. Even more overtly, one of his goals was "more red sweaters", his way of saying that he wanted a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the unicameral. The results aren't all in, but it's likely that Republicans will get that thirty-third vote that would prevent Democrats from blocking nakedly partisan laws, such as a total abortion ban. 

We're still waiting for the results of a few elections that will affect national politics, such as which party controls the Senate, but here in Nebraska, we've set the clock back...quite a bit more than an hour. 

Tilting at Imaginary Windmills

Once upon a time the two largest political parties disagreed and argued about actual issues. You could disagree with what either their positions were, but you could be sure that they were talking about things that were real. Economic issues, foreign policy, infrastructure, taxes - maybe they weren't sincere, or were in the pocket of big donors, but they fought about things that existed!

One of the things that don't exist that Republicans have made an issue of is Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory exists, but it is a legal hypothesis that is based on the premise that racism in the United States is less caused by individual acts of bigotry and more on structural and systemic considerations. This is taught in law school, not your local community college, not any high school, and certainly not elementary schools, despite what "parents rights" advocates and the right-wing politicians would have you believe. Despite its absence from any school curriculum that any child or any adult who is a non-lawyer is likely to encounter, Critical Race Theory has become one of the non-issues with which today's Republicans get their supporters excited about. School Board meetings are disrupted by angry parents and governors, who have no input whatsoever in what gets taught in school, campaign on it. 

In addition to the fact that Critical Race Theory isn't being taught in schools, what people think Critical Race Theory is, is inaccurate, a fantasy put forth by Republicans looking for a wedge issue. Fantasy Critical Race Theory includes the idea that all White people are racists, that they are born racists, that Black people should hate White people, that all White people are oppressors, that all Black people are helplessly oppressed, that today's White people are responsible for the past - it goes on and on. Republican led state legislatures and local school boards are banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory in public schools. One might wonder, since it's not actually being taught in public schools, and it's funhouse mirror version certainly isn't, why banning something that's already not there would be a problem. I'm glad you asked.

Republican politicians, along with confused and angry parents, have interpreted virtually anything in school history curricula that addresses racism, including slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings or segregation, as being Critical Race Theory. Some have even gone further, pointing to any mention of contributions by Black Americans, including celebrating Black History Month, as Critical Race Theory. The imaginary windmill that the Republicans are tilting at is a twisted, exaggerated, and false definition of a scholarly discipline. The real discipline isn't even in school curricula, but the do-your research crowd has been convinced that it is, that the false definition is the true one, and have lumped basic United States history that used to be noncontroversial in with their invented definition, causing a spike in the sale of pitchforks, scythes and torches among the angry villagers.  

This isn't the only make-believe issue that Republicans are running on. The lie of the stolen election and equating the acknowledgment that gay and transgender people exists with pedophilia are two other big ones. Causes you to wonder how they plan to govern when most of what they think needs to be addressed can only be found in their imaginations. 

Safe & Secure Elections

Is there such a thing as election or voter fraud? ("Voter fraud" indicates actions by individuals, usually isolated; "election fraud" is organized actions by political parties, lobbying groups or other entities to change the or illegally influence election results) Of course there is. We see a handful of cases every year. From someone who manages to vote twice, to a a deceased voter's mail-in ballot be filled out by a family member, to organized schemes that have popped up in a few constituencies. But is election or voter fraud widespread? Is it common? There is no evidence to suggest that it is, so where does the Republican idea that our elections not only are subject to fraud, but are so overrun with it that the results cannot be trusted, and are rigged in favor of Democrats? The answer is pretty easy to identify. 

Donald Trump.

Until 2016 candidates for public office operated under the assumption that votes would be counted accurately. That there were checks in place to identify any irregularities. That close elections would receive extra scrutiny, including recounts. 

This is not to say that politicians did whatever they (legally) could to make their own election and reelection more likely. Gerrymandering, unreasonable barriers to registration, and the like have a long history - but virtually every candidate for public office accepted the results and graciously (usually) conceded defeat when the numbers told them that's what happened. 

In the months before the 2016 presidential election candidate Donald Trump began to suggest that the only way that he could lose was if the election was "rigged" against him. He suggested that the primaries where he lost were rigged. Journalists, picking up on this started asking him if he would accept the results of an election in which he lost. He never said "no", but his answers, like "we'll see", and "if I win" indicated that he wouldn't accept the results of an election if he wasn't the winner. Since he did win, the point was moot. 

Or was it.

His opponent, former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, received close to three million more votes than he did. In our Electoral College system of electing a president, that's an irrelevant number. It really only matters in that it's an indication of popular support, but for the purposes of deciding who sits in the Oval Office it's meaningless. But it wasn't meaningless to President Donald Trump. He started tweeting (his preferred form of communication) that in addition to winning a majority of Electoral College votes, he actually won the popular vote...if you didn't count millions of votes by illegal immigrants. He also began referring to his victory as a landslide, even though his Electoral vote margin of victory was fairly average. 

Unable to believe that he hadn't convinced a majority of Americans to vote for him he established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (aka "The Election Fraud Commission) headed by Vice President Mike Pence, with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as vice-chair and the driving force behind the commission. The commission was disbanded in January 2018 without finding any evidence of voter or election fraud. 

Fast forward to the 2020 presidential election. Who knows whether Trump believed that it possible that he would lose. He has a massive ego, but also has a history of massaging the facts in his favor. He made his first public remarks suggesting that election results were untrustworthy in April 2020. But as early as Summer 2019 he certainly was aware that former Vice-President Joe Biden would be the likely Democratic nominee and was taking steps to undermine Biden's chances. July 2019 was when Trump encouraged Ukrainian President Zelensky to open an investigation in the Biden and his son which resulted in his first impeachment. Trump disparaged Biden as "Sleepy Joe" and downplayed Biden's chances of defeating him, treating his candidacy as a joke. 

There were several differences in the 2020 voting environment from 2016. The Covid-19 pandemic caused many states to modify their rules, making mail-in voting, early voting, and the availability of drop boxes much more prevalent. Trump began his assault on election integrity by questioning the security of mail-in ballots. It's true that in some states this was a new thing, but other states had been using voting by mail for years without any problems, and some states' elections were entirely conducted by mail. Mail voting existed when the Election Fraud Commission was doing its investigations, yet they found no systemic problems with the practice. 

Throughout 2020 Trump continued to attack the reliability of voting systems, accelerating his rhetoric once Joe Biden became the Democratic nominee. Think about that for a minute or two - months before a single vote was cast he was asserting, without a shred of evidence, that due to these ephemeral irregularities, the election would be rigged against him...if he lost. In fact he insisted that the only way that he could lose was if the election was rigged and rife with fraud. He and many of his supporters imagined that voting by mail and the use of drop boxes was by its very nature not secure so therefore there will be fraud. Not a shred of evidence was presented; possibly because the election hadn't happened yet, but they couldn't point to any evidence that it was happening in states that were already using these voting methods either. But Trump's most ardent supporters had already been primed, as cultists often are, to believe anything that Trump told them. Based on the doubts sown by Trump, Trump voters now had their own doubts, which they echoed back to Trump and his allied political leaders, which Trump in turn pointed to as evidence that "many people had questions". Who knows what would have taken place if he had squeaked by and won again in 2020 - which very easily could have happened with a few thousand votes in some key states going the other way. Ironically Biden's Electoral College victory was exactly the same as Trump's 2016 margin. 

We all know what happened next. Trump not only refused to concede, he announced, before all the votes were counted in states with close elections, that he had won. Eventually he would start calling his "win" a landslide. Biden received around 7 million more votes than Trump. Recounts, audits, investigations, lawsuits, all turned up no fraud and no results were changed. But the damage was done. Millions of people believe that the election was stolen from Trump. Some of them went to Washington while the electoral vote certification was underway and invaded the Capitol. A majority of Republicans voted to not certify electoral votes in states where Trump narrowly lost. 

This was new. There have been disputed elections in the past. Recounts have taken place. in the 2000 election the Supreme Court got involved. But in all cases the loser eventually conceded defeat and moved on. Trump not only refused to admit defeat, but has ramped up his claims of chicanery by the Democrats, still insisting that he won...by "a lot". He has inspired hundreds of Republican candidates to run explicitly as election deniers. Candidates, who in positions like Secretary of State, have the power to influence how an election is conducted, and who indicate that a Republican victory is the only valid victory to be contemplated.

There's still no evidence. There never has been evidence. In over 60 court filings no evidence was ever presented. Affidavits without exception speculated on how fraud might have taken place, without uncovering any actual fraud, or pointed to "suspicious" activity that turned out to be perfectly normal procedure. Statistical "anomalies" were only anomalous if you didn't understand statistics. 

The idea of a rigged election came from the paranoid mind of Donald Trump and was passed on to his cult who accepted it without evidence. Scarily, the current crop of MAGA Republicans make the thought of a rigged election a real possibility.

Fortunately, in the election that took place earlier this month election deniers were elected, but fortunately the worst of them, the ones in positions to actually skew election results were not elected. In fact the trend seemed to be that traditional Republicans did better than Trumpy Republicans overall. The danger isn't past, but maybe it's delayed a little.