Donald Trump said he hired only the very best people. In saying this, as in almost everything else he’s ever done, he was either lying, exhibiting exceptionally poor judgment, or both.
What follows is an excerpt from an Alternet article on one of those wonderful people: John Eastman, the lawyer who developed the rationale behind the January 6th insurrection.
You may recall that last week Eastman said in public that the plan to overthrow the government he outlined in his notorious memo, and that Trump adopted and followed, was “crazy” and “not viable.” Then, a couple of days later, he was caught on video by undercover reporter Lauren Windsor insisting that if Pence hadn’t been so “spineless” it would have worked.
The image below shows Eastman (dressed for a Wild West shoot-out) with Rudy. Trump was going to be late for his appearance at the “pre-coup pep rally,” so these two were asked to speak for awhile pending his arrival.
Rudy has already lost his license to practice law in Washington DC and New York. Let’s hope that Eastman will soon join hin in disbarment.
The report, written by Washington Post reporters Josh Dawsey, Jacqueline Alemany, Jon Swaine, and Emma Brown, explains how Eastman attempted to build a case to persuade former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election. It has been revealed that “even as rioters overran the Capitol and a recalcitrant Pence was forced into hiding, Eastman emailed a Pence aide to actually blame Pence for the scene.”
To anyone who reads this (assuming anyone does read it!), at several points I note that I can’t adequately respond to Waltz because I don’t yet have sufficient information.
Barack Obama once told a reporter he hadn’t yet commented on some matter because he liked to be sure he knew what he was talking about before he spoke. I feel the same way; so I’ll much appreciate any information or pointers toward information I can get.
(Remembering how Obama’s successor had no such qualms–and no compunction about lying even on the rare occasions when he did know what he was talking about–I trust you’ll appreciate my reticence.)
The response is lengthy; so, instead of posting it here, I’ve decided to upload it as a PDF. Here’s the link: Waltz lies
Michael Waltz’s congressional district covers Volusia and Flagler counties.
Preparing to drag my sorry ass upstairs to bed…beside a woman who’s been stuck with less than she deserves.
Been digitizing music and videos. Right now I’m listening to a music album while digitizing a video. The video? Disney’s Fantasia 2000. Walt gets credit for the original. For 2000 the credit is Roy’s. I’ll write more about the video as the weekend progresses.
For now, though, the music alone. The album is titled Mephisto, and it features Eiji Oue leading the Minnesota Symphony Orchestra. Works included are…
- Liszt: Mephisto Waltz
- Mussorgsky: Night on Bald Mountain (also in Fantasia)
- Liadov: Baba Yaga (a Russian witch, who’s featured also in Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition)
- Franck: The Accursed Huntsman
- Dukas: The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (in both versions of Fantasia)
- Saint-Saëns: Danse Macabre
- Arnold: Tam O’Shanter
- Strauss Jr.: Lucifer Polka
Great stuff! Highly recommended, both for the compositions themselves and for these particular performances/interpretations. Listen to the compositions while waiting for trick-or-treaters!
Each to her or his own, of course. But my suggestion would be first to listen to the compositions; then, if you don’t already know the content they reference, read about that; finally, with eyes closed and imagination open, listen to the music again.
News organizations like yours use words and pictures (sometimes pictures that move) to communicate information and opinion. So how can on-air talkers and those who write the chyrons etc. for such organizations be so clueless about the framing power of the words they use?
Republicans *always* refer to the President’s investment in America package as a “spending bill.” What’s a “spending” bill? It’s a bill whose purpose is to spend money. Obviously. That’s the way Republicans want the voters to see it.
Democrats want voters to see it as a bill whose purpose is to provide goods, services, protection of the environment, etc. So instead of referring to it as a “spending” bill, Democrats refer to it as … a “spending” bill!!? WTF!
On the last two nights Ari Melber referred to it continually as a “spending bill.” This morning the MSNBC chyrons referred to it continually as a “spending bill.” With friends like MSNBC, who needs Republicans to destroy our democracy?
P.S. Manchin and Sinema might be “moderate” or “centrist” politicians, but they are not “moderate” or “centrist” Democrats. They are “conservative,” “right-wing,” “reactionary,” “regressive” Democrats.