October 2, 2022

The whole Truth? Ginni says generally, not never.

The whole Truth?

Ginni says generally, not never

by Hal Brown

Related articles on bottom of page

Click to enlarge image

“She was a gift from God that I had prayed for,” the justice said in a new book about him, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in his Own Words.” “She’s been as dear and close a human being as I could have ever imagined having in my life.”

 Just saying: Turning back the clock of justice 



The horrible housfrau Thomas' choice of the word "generally" in her testimony to the Jan. 6th Committee jumped out at me: 

The words quoted in her prepared remarks sound as if they were prepared by lawyers to avoid her perjuring herself.

This is from CNN.


“Regarding the 2020 election, I did not speak with him at all about the details of my volunteer campaign activities,” Thomas said under oath in her opening statement obtained by CNN. “And I did not speak with him at all about the details of my post-election activities, which were minimal, in any event. I am certain I never spoke with him about any of the legal challenges to the 2020 election, as I was not involved with those challenges in any way.”

Thomas’ prepared remarks, however, stressed, “that my husband has never spoken with me about pending cases at the Court. It’s an iron clad rule in our home.”

“Additionally, [Justice Thomas] is uninterested in politics. And I generally do not discuss with him my day-to-day work in politics, the topics I am working on, who I am calling, emailing, texting, or meeting,” she added.


Not that anyone need to be reminded of the following synonyms for generally:
The remarks quoted above were prepared in advance. Did Ginni write them herself? I rather doubt it. They sound like they were carefully written by lawyers so she wouldn't risk perjuring herself.

The last part about her husband being uninterested in politics depends of course on one's definition of politics, but  it is still impossible to believe. 

Nobody with a working prefrontal cortex believes that Ginni didn't discuss her belief that the election was stollen as a result of a complex and massive scheme to deprive Donald Trump of his legitimate win.

The first part of her statement that it is an iron clad rule that her husband doesn't speak with her about pending cases may be true, after all she "guarantees" that it is.

This doesn't preclude his listening to her when she talks about her political beliefs and engaging in back and forth discussion with her about them. 

Getting back to the word "generally" and what she didn't say. She didn't say that she never speaks with him about specifics about what she's working on in her day-to-day work in politics, but even this is true she didn't address whether she speaks with him about what she believes.

I would be very surprised if the two of them didn't engage in numerous discussions about her belief, and very possibly Clarence's belief, that the election was stollen by the evil Joe Biden and the members of the deep state who were his allies in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on freedom loving patriotic Americans.


And then there's this:

‘The View’ Hosts ‘Call B.S.’ on Ginni Thomas’ Claims She Doesn’t Talk Politics With Her Husband: ‘A Filthy Liar’


“Excerpts:

I think Ginni Thomas is a little bit of a filthy liar,” (co-host) Hostin said. “And the reason that I say that is because she says ‘We don’t talk about politics. We don’t talk about the Supreme Court…'” At that, Joy Behar cut her off, asking “What do they talk about, ‘Dancing With the Stars?'”

Hostin brought that up because there is indeed a thread between former clerks of Judge Thomas — which his wife is not only on, but “she plans family retreats for everyone” in it. Hostin also pointed out that one of those former clerks is John Eastman, who was, of course, one of the biggest testimonies in the Jan. 6 hearings.

“So Ginni, come on girl,” Hostin said cheekily.

Host Alyssa Farah Griffin also admitted that she’d “call B.S.” on Thomas’ claims that the Thomases don’t discuss their work, arguing that at the very least, Judge Thomas might ask his wife how her day was, or if she did anything exciting — including on Jan. 6, when his wife was at the Capitol.

“Is she a liar, or is she in the cult?” Behar wondered. But to that, host Ana Navarro had a blunt answer.

“Honey, she’s cray cray,” Navarro shot back. “This is not hard to figure out. First of all, since they’re not talking about politics, and they’re not talking about legal cases, maybe they’re the ones talking about Bruno.”

At Behar’s obvious confusion, Navarro clarified that she was referencing the viral song from Disney’s “Encanto,” before getting into her true thoughts on Ginni Thomas.

“I think she is representative of people who are somewhat radicalized, or totally radicalized, who are not rooted in fact, and who are crazy,” she said. “But I don’t think Ginni Thomas is a mastermind behind this conspiracy. I think she is one of those annoying gadflies that they had to deal with because she happens to be married to a Supreme Court justice that they needed.”

....and this:

"As we talk about and think of the rigged and stolen of 2020 — presidential election, rigged and stolen — I would like to thank a great woman named Ginni Thomas. Do you know Ginni Thomas? Great woman."
 

My snarky photo manipulation of the day (if you don't count the one I made for this story):

A picture is worth 1000 words... going 266,000 miles beyond the cliche... and you might be in dire need of psychiatric intervention too.

A (mostly) unrelated story and my comment:
Click below to enlarge my comment and added illustration.
As someone who was a psychotherapist for 40 years I try to have empathy for people like this woman because she was vulnerable to being manipulated like so many others who got sucked into the Trump cult and other far smaller cults in previous times. It is sad that instead of MAGA hats in another context they could be wearing tinfoil on their heads to prevent outer-space rays from frying their brains.

Another article, I added to the illustration (click image to enlarge)

Lawyer claims Trump could get away with financial lies because there was a disclaimer


And then there's Judge Cannon.... who went to The University of Michigan Law School... read my story about her (and Trump) here.

On the subject of law schools, real ones that is, here is a related article:

The Supreme Court Is Blowing Up Law School, Too

Inside the growing furor among professors who have had enough.



Excerpts:

At law schools across the country, thousands of professors of constitutional law are currently facing a court that, in their view, has let the mask of neutrality fall off completely. Six conservative justices are steering the court head-on into the most controversial debates of the day and consistently siding with the Republican Party. Increasingly, the conservative majority does not even bother to provide any reasoning for its decisions, exploiting the shadow docket to overhaul the law without a word of explanation. The crisis reached its zenith between September 2021 and June 2022, when the Supreme Court let Texas impose its vigilante abortion ban through the shadow docket, then abolished a 50-year-old right to bodily autonomy by overruling Roe v. Wade. Now law professors are faced with a quandary: How—and why—should you teach law to students while the Supreme Court openly changes the meaning of the Constitution to align with the GOP?

A version of this question has long dogged the profession, which has fought over the distinction between law and politics for about as long as it has existed. For decades, however, the court has handed enough victories to both sides of the political spectrum that it has avoided a full-on academic revolt against its legitimacy. That dynamic changed when Trump appointed Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to replace far less conservative predecessors and created a Republican-appointed supermajority, a coalition further aided by the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to a seat that should have been filled by Barack Obama. The cascade of far-right rulings in 2022 confirmed that the new court is eager to shred long-held precedents it deems too liberal as quickly as possible. The pace and scale of this revolution is requiring law professors to adapt on several levels—intellectually, pedagogically, and emotionally.

---------

The problem, it’s worth emphasizing, is not that the Supreme Court is issuing decisions with which left-leaning professors disagree. It’s that the court seems to be reaching many of these conclusions in defiance of centuries of standards, rejecting precedent and moderation in favor of aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning. Plenty of progressive professors have long viewed the court with skepticism, and many professors, right- and left-leaning, have criticized the reasoning behind certain opinions for decades. But it’s only in recent years—with the manipulation of the justice selection process combined with clear, results-oriented cynicism in decisions—that the problem has seemed so acute that they feel it affects their ability to teach constitutional law.


October 1, 2022

Autumn Cleanup: Trash can for Judge Cannon, Prison Putting For Trump

Autumn Cleanup: Trash can for Judge Cannon, Prison Putting For Trump

by Hal Brown 

I read a story about the chance that Judge Aileen Cannon could be removed from the Trump documents case titled

The door to remove Judge Aileen Cannon from the Trump case is now 'wide open': former prosecutor

In a column for Slate, former federal prosecutor Robert Katzberg made the case that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's continued interference in the work being done by special master Raymond Dearie in the matter of government documents stolen by Donald Trump could lead to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stepping in and taking the case from her.

I  came up with this image:


The Florida federal district court judge has seemingly been quite camera shy since a Google image search of her comes up with only one other recent photo and a couple of them from her wedding. For those wanting to use her in a photo manipulated image of her in a trash can there's no photos of her standing.




The next stories I looked at had to do with Trump and his racist, violence inciting (and misspelled) Truth Social screed. 

Clicking above enlarges image, does not go to Truth Social, he spells advice :"advise"

It led to lot of blowback on Twitter (where he can no longer post since he was suspended). See: 

'Thinly-veiled incitement to violence and overt racism': Trump's Truth Social post sparks outrage

There's nothing here that could result in Trump going to prison, but needless to say, there are lots of crimes he committed which could end him up residing not his tasteless Florida house and hotel but instead in the big house, aka the greybar hotel, or choose your own slang term for prison.


After attorney Christopher Kise accepted $3 million to represent Donald Trump in the FBI’s investigation of government documents stored at Mar-a-Lago, the veteran litigator argued that Trump should adopt a new strategy.

Turn down the temperature with the Department of Justice, Kise — a former Florida solicitor general — counseled his famously combative client, people familiar with the deliberations said....

Instead, just a few weeks after Kise was brought aboard, he finds himself in a battle, trying to persuade Trump to go along with his legal strategy and fighting with some other advisers who have counseled a more aggressive posture. The dispute has raged for at least a week, Trump advisers say, with the former president listening as various lawyers make their best arguments. 


My assessment of those attorneys who are telling Trump to be aggressive are just telling him what he wants to hear in order to placate him and keep their jobs.

From the Post:

Trump seems, at least for now, to be heeding advice from those who have indulged his desire to fight.

The approach could leave the former president on a collision course with the Justice Department, as he relies on a legal trust that includes three attorneys facing their own potential legal risks.

Here's what Barbara McQuade said on the Katie Phang show:

"I say, Katie, to those lawyers who joined in good faith and think they're going to change Donald Trump: bless you and good luck, here we go again," she replied. "Donald Trump has one mode and it is all offense all the time."

"Anyone who thinks he is going to change, you know, it's like the woman who marries the man and says 'I'm going to change him.' No. People are who they are," she explained. "At this point in life, shame on him for not knowing who Donald Trump is."




Even though Trump's continued belligerence won't directly result in him going to prison there's no way a competent and ethical lawyer wouldn't strongly dissuade him from engaging in this behavior. He is slowly but surely turning more and more of public sentiment against him. This recklessness will ultimately be self-defeating. Attorney General Garland no doubt is aware of this and while this won't directly effect his decision whether to indict him he has to know Trump is daring him, and state prosecutors, to just try to pry the emperor out of his Mar-a-Lago castle....

which reminds me of the following:

Another example of generalized slang for prison that came from a specific prison is the term "the castle." This term used to refer to Sing Sing prison. Located in Ossining, New York, Sing Sing prison is one of America's oldest prisons and used to be called "the castle on the Hudson River." The word "castle" is now used to refer to any jail as well.
Reference

Back to my penchant for making illustrations.

The are lots of photoshop-type images of Trump behind bars. It is easy enough to look up prison bars and put them over a picture of Trump.




I began to think of another way to depict what I' d like to happen to him. If and hopefully when Trump goes to prison of course he will need to be protected from harm or harassment from other prisoners and while not being held in solitary confinement he'd need to be segregated from the general population. He will have a right to outside exercise and thus will need to be allowed to spend time in a special fenced in area.

I found a photo of such an area:
I found two photos of Trump putting. One I'd already used here:
This would have been a good one to use except Trump wouldn't be wearing a suit in prison. It is one of the rare photos of Trump not wearing a MAGA hat. 

The only other photo of Trump putting has him wearing a hat, which I suppose might be allowed in prison.


Unfortunately he's wearing his usual golf garb. I doubt he'd be able to dress in his own clothes so  you'll have to imagine him wearing prison casual (below) in my final illustration.

So here is my picture of lucky Trump, who is not only allowed to use a little putter and golf ball and even wear his own clothes, but has a small patch of green grass to practice putting on. Maybe he has one of those rubber office putting practice golf holes to move around and pretend he's really on the putting green at one of his old golf courses. (Click images to enlarge)


I couldn't resist making this one:

Related

During an appearance on MSNBC on Saturday afternoon, civil rights attorney Charles Coleman suggested that Donald Trump's demand that his attorneys aggressively push back at the Department of Justice investigation into stolen documents at Mar-a-Lago could do substantial damage to their careers. From RawStory

Above: Clever title, if you're too young to remember or not up on old musical hits:



 



This blog has moved to a new address

  This website is migrating Due to a problem with this platform, Google Blogger, I have moved my blog to WordPress and given it a new addres...