September 30, 2020

First 2020 Presidential Debate: WTF Was That?

I am still trying to wrap my American brain around whatever happened last night in the context of the nationally-humiliating circus sadly billed as the first Presidential debate of 2020.

CNN’s Jake Tapper, appearing shaken, aghast even, summed it up immediately after the shameful spectacle ended: "That was a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck."

I am embarrassed, even ashamed, for my country, for our people. I am incensed. I am worried, indeed, frightened, for my family and loved ones, for our increasingly-fragile Republic.

I’ll admit to having been unnerved in the early moments of what became a verbal schoolyard mud-fight when Biden declared “I am the Democratic Party.” But that was a gaffe, not a hijacking.

And, as much as I believe a President deserves respect and ought not be called a “fool” or a “clown” or be told to “shut up,” honestly, how many of us watching weren’t thinking the same things?

All in all, I admired Biden’s dignity. It's astounding that he managed to retain his train of thought as Trump blustered, lied, attacked. Indeed, Biden demolished Trump’s spin that he is mentally failing.

Trump was vile. He spewed venom, lied, preened, interrupted, broke debate rules, whined, bullied, vomited insults, endorsed hate, legitimized terrorist supporters, incited violence.

He was disgraceful. He demeaned the Office.  He outlined no policies, no platform, no plans, no empathy for the plight of everyday Americans; sick, scared, unemployed, desperate.

Trump seems to have reconciled himself to not gaining a majority of voters. There was zero effort to reach beyond his base, rather, like a tinpot despot, he focused on further radicalizing them.

Indeed, he seems to have no intention of “winning” the vote. He knows he can’t. Rather, he aims to disrupt the election, contest the results, and let the newly-stacked Supreme Court bless his coup.

He displayed his full and gross narcissistic, heartless, deranged persona in rich plumage last night. Our 243-year-old Republic is at stake. Global stability is at stake. Please vote Biden.

September 29, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett: Put Her to the Test

Watching the Grifter-in-Chief and his Senate minions jamming a new Supreme Court Justice down America’s collective throat has had me thinking that Senate Democrats should just boycott the whole confirmation hearing charade.

Until today.

With the first 2020 Presidential debate mere hours away, and the future of our nation very much at stake, I’m now thinking that there is perhaps a better approach for Democrats to take in terms of the equally-pivotal Supreme Court confirmation process.

Let’s start by ruling out hearing tactics that might try to sully her character or damage her integrity.  And don’t question her Catholic faith or her “People of Praise” membership.  Indeed, Dems should acknowledge that, by all or most accounts, she’s a fine human being and a legal scholar.

So, how about plumbing her jurisprudential knowledge; seek her guidance on interpretation of various elements of the Constitution; tap her wisdom related to actual legal definitions, or her opinions on already-public matters and cases? The American people will be watching and learning.

For instance, perhaps ask her to explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. 

Once she has, keeping things matter-of-fact, ask for her legal opinion regarding a real-life situation, such as: If a president refused to divest herself of her properties and, in fact, steered hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to her properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?

Drill a little deeper perhaps: Putting aside the obvious compromise of national security, ask: If a President declined to detach herself from a global business empire – leaving her deeply commercially-engaged with foreign governments, including with clear financial gain – would that violate the clause?

The emoluments violations list is endless, but it’s always good to mix things up, so…

Perhaps Barrett could be asked to explain the Hatch Act. You know, the 1939 law that “prohibits civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and vice president, from engaging in some forms of political activity.”

After she does, maybe remind her of the multiple, flagrant violations of Hatch during the recent Republican Convention and seek her legal opinion on these myriad infractions and the impact to the most basic foundation of our democracy - the rule of law – if such violations go unpunished.

Keep mixing it up.

Ask her if she might detail the Constitutionally-defined duties of the U.S. Congress to oversee the executive branch. Again, presuming the hearings will be broadcast live, such a request for Constitutional clarification will be valuable to Americans assessing the Judge’s bona fides.

Then seek the Judge’s legal opinion on the Trump administration’s repeated refusal to respond to subpoenas from the Congress.  Does she think such refusals by the executive amount to obstructions of Congressional oversight?  Obstructions of justice? If not, why not?

Shift gears.

Why not touch on the impeachment?  Ask Barrett to explain collusion. Then, borrow from the recent GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee report that lists the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the 2016 election and ask her opinion whether such amount to collusion.

And so on.

Again, as noted above, by all or most accounts, the Judge is a good person.  The questions above are not hypothetical. They're all related to real-world happenings, and, well, they’re all pretty blatant examples of breaking one law or another or multiple laws.

So, if Barrett answer dishonestly, she’ll expose herself as just another Trump stooge. If she answers honestly, as a person or her purported character should, then we will all get to watch Trump and his corrupt administration publicly excoriated by his own chosen Supreme Court Justice nominee.

Fun.